SH Zoom JJ, BB vs MP, Set

Originally posted by Malendes

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by Malendes
...
On river I think we will be losing most of the time when he shoves, but getting better than 3:1, I believe we can call profitable against example KQ sometimes

The pot odds 3:1 is not the relevant thing to look at when raised OTR. Not saying calling is wrong, but most players are unaware of the fact that they should fold much more to a raise getting X:1 than to a straight bet getting X:1. I personally need reads to call in this particular hand.

I am aware that villian is more likely to have it, when he reraises (and not betting), but I am probably not good to put villian on a specific range. Would you take all the hands that we are beating, out of his range when he reraises?
And this might be a fishy question, but i am still learning: what do you mean when you say that potodds is relevant when raised? Should I forget about the math in spots like these, and only act on reads?

you should not forget about pot odds. Reads narrow your opponent's range in this case and could flip whether his range has more or less bluffs. without reads I think it is safe to assume that his range is very polarised to monsters that beat us.

About the play itself, I think you should re-raise a min raise preflop, particularly with a hand as strong as JJ .post flop not much to say till the river where I think it is a clear fold. I am not sure if I would have been able to fold in situ though, I probably would have made the wrong decision .

Not bad. I think you should have raised more preflop and a bigger bet on the turn. On the river though, I like check/call maybe. I don't see the 2 changing anything. I think if he has a bigger set, or if he flopped a straight, he would have made a strong mover before the flop. KK, or QQ seems unlikely though, as I think he would have re raised preflop.

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by Malendes
...
On river I think we will be losing most of the time when he shoves, but getting better than 3:1, I believe we can call profitable against example KQ sometimes

The pot odds 3:1 is not the relevant thing to look at when raised OTR. Not saying calling is wrong, but most players are unaware of the fact that they should fold much more to a raise getting X:1 than to a straight bet getting X:1. I personally need reads to call in this particular hand.

The two of you are talking about different things. Malendes goes with the exploitative approach where the thought process is "Ok, we get 3:1 pot odds, he has X stronger combos, we need Y weaker ones to have a profitable call. Do we have them?". And that is all of it, we don't care about the frequencies. What you are saying is indeed correct and the right way to approach the problem from a theoretical point of view.

How can we combine the two approaches to make better decisions? I see two ways to do it. The first is to begin with the theoretical point of view and then adjust just a little to exploit the field and wait for reads (as you suggested). The other one is to start with the exploitative approach and only when the answer to the above question is "I don't know." or "I'm not sure.", we go to theory to give us an idea what to do.

I don't know which one is better for the microstakes players. For getting results on micros I'm sure the "exploiting first" approach is better. Also this is the best time to understand how weak players think and play as they are all around you.
On the other hand, thinking more about theory will be a good preparation for when you move up and also will give you an idea about what exploting actually is and when you can exploit someone (when he deviates from the optimal lines and frequencies => you have to know them so that you know where his leaks are). What do you think?
---
Sorry for the slight off-topic. Hand can be 3bet preflop because of the minopen, against standard open call from BB is fine. On the river it should be a fold after the raise - I don't expect him to raise two pair on the river. If we're not sure and still feel bad folding a set, we can think about our range and see that we have a lot of straights in there so he can't exploit us by bluffing.

I think fold is ok as played, as most 2 pairs would have re-raised you earlier.

Thanks Yohan, Thazar and Kriko - useful stuff

Thank you, guys! Excellent comments there!

I was really not feeling great with calling the river because I just can't see many worse hands than mine which didn't raise before. I don't see him raising AK or KQ now, for example. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of check/calling because I expect those to call my bet more often than bet vs my check (especially stuff like AK or KT). I pretty much exclude all gutshots that might bluff because I don't think there are many of them by the river after all the action. I think we have to take the value with betting. It is very anoying when he raises, but I would like to become a player who don't think in those spots like "Fuck it, I have a set and I will call" (in this case I thought exactly that). ♦

You should better become a player who can play this hand better.

Originally posted by nitrol
You should better become a player who can play this hand better.
I actually don't hate my play untill this call on the river (true that we could 3bet pre). I believe that the call makes a difference between playing this hand fine and badly, so being able to fold probably means that I can play the hand better.

.

I would 3bet pre, post looks ok. River can be a fold.