Flop - Top pair and 2nd nut flush draw against fish

TPGK, second nut FD and backdoor straight draw might barely be enough to do this. I didn't check with equilab.
On the other hand the guy looks very passive at least preflop. So he might be strong when he starts raising flops?

We cannot fold on flop vs 45BB stack...

Originally posted by nitrol
We cannot fold on flop vs 45BB stack...

Why? His raise size is still 5.2x, which is huge. He has been very passive preflop so he could be very passive postflop too. We need some special info if we want to call a raise this big. If we know he is a fish, it is not enough, because he looks like a passive fish.

Cause we have enough equity and if we fold it here, we would be overfolding.
Hand sample is very small to make conclusions if he is passive or active.

So if we were 100bb deep and vs a reg you would call over 5x raise with non nut FD?

Where did you read this?

Originally posted by nitrol
Cause we have enough equity and if we fold it here, we would be overfolding.
Hand sample is very small to make conclusions if he is passive or active.

You said it..
Basically you said the hand sample is too small to make conclusions how villain plays. So we should play our standard game? So same strategy than vs a reg?
And you said we have enough equity and if we fold we would be folding too much. Now villain is short stack and it differs from deep only because we have weaker implied odds.

So if we get direct odds and treat villain as unknown, how does it differ from 100bb reg?

Man, I hate when people take something out of the context and try to be smart.
In my initial post I have written in pure English, I hope, that : We cannot fold on flop vs 45BB stack.
I do not know where do you see 100bb and so on...

Originally posted by la55i

Originally posted by nitrol
Cause we have enough equity and if we fold it here, we would be overfolding.
Hand sample is very small to make conclusions if he is passive or active.

You said it..
Basically you said the hand sample is too small to make conclusions how villain plays. So we should play our standard game? So same strategy than vs a reg?
And you said we have enough equity and if we fold we would be folding too much. Now villain is short stack and it differs from deep only because we have weaker implied odds.

So if we get direct odds and treat villain as unknown, how does it differ from 100bb reg?

Show me where in my posts I wrote about playing vs 100bb villain...

Thank all for answer, I reraise on flop becaouce i saw on this limit this move from this type player (pf calling, < 50BB ) with TP without kicker, second pair, weak draw.

And I want confirmation that it is correct

Originally posted by nitrol
Show me where in my posts I wrote about playing vs 100bb villain...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but against 5x raise our required equity is the same than if villain was deep. Only the implied odds are worse now. So if you would call here, you would call against the same player even when 100bb deep too, right? Because if we have enough equity and otherwise we would be folding too much, this is true no matter what the stack sizes are?

Also if we base our decision on direct odds and think the sample size is too small to draw conclusions, we should use our standard strategy. Which means we would end up playing like villain was 100bb deep reg?

If we look at this thoretically, villains raise size is so big that we have to defend only about 30% of our range, and since we have all of the sets, 2 pair, nut flushes, AJ etc in our range, I'm not sure if we have to defend TPGK and non nut FD.

Originally posted by TSykora
And I want confirmation that it is correct

It could be correct. The thing is that villain probably is a recreational player and he can be unpredictable. He can either raise big with weak draws, or then he can do it only with 2 pair or better. I personally would say that if he only limps preflop, he will not start making huge raises with just draws.

You did not answer- where in my post I speak about playing vs full stack?

Originally posted by la55i

Originally posted by nitrol
Show me where in my posts I wrote about playing vs 100bb villain...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but against 5x raise our required equity is the same than if villain was deep. Only the implied odds are worse now. So if you would call here, you would call against the same player even when 100bb deep too, right? Because if we have enough equity and otherwise we would be folding too much, this is true no matter what the stack sizes are?

Also if we base our decision on direct odds and think the sample size is too small to draw conclusions, we should use our standard strategy. Which means we would end up playing like villain was 100bb deep reg?

If we look at this thoretically, villains raise size is so big that we have to defend only about 30% of our range, and since we have all of the sets, 2 pair, nut flushes, AJ etc in our range, I'm not sure if we have to defend TPGK and non nut FD.

Originally posted by TSykora
And I want confirmation that it is correct

It could be correct. The thing is that villain probably is a recreational player and he can be unpredictable. He can either raise big with weak draws, or then he can do it only with 2 pair or better. I personally would say that if he only limps preflop, he will not start making huge raises with just draws.

Well, you are bad at guessing. We can call vs the shortstack not because of the implied odds but because he can show up with a bunch of funky staff (that Snowie would not know about ).
I have seen AQ,99 here... If you fold this equity vs a recreational shortstack you will be overfolding.
And he is recreational not because of stats...
That is all.
Next time do not get lines out of context, please.

I did not take it out of context. I just interpreted what you said that way
When I suggested that villain is a passive fish you told that the sample size is too small to conclude whether he is passive or active, but at the same time you seem to think he is on the active side?
If you want to think that a guy who has played 9 hands in 14 and never raised pre is capable of raising the flop with weak hands, then you can of course go ahead and shove.

Man, I really don't like you to interpret anything from my thoughts here.
It sounds like the Devil is reading the Bible...
All we know for sure here is that villain is shortstack and thus he is a fish.
Passive or active we cannot say as it is a really small sample.
Fish on nl2 will raise a bunch of funky staff and I think we have enough to call.
Everything else is a la-la-land...

Well, you are bad at guessing. We can call vs the shortstack not because of the implied odds but because he can show up with a bunch of funky staff (that Snowie would not know about ).
I have seen AQ,99 here... If you fold this equity vs a recreational shortstack you will be overfolding.
And he is recreational not because of stats...
That is all.
Next time do not get lines out of context, please.

wow! i did not know u could write more the one line!!! must be some spot that deserves a more deep analysis i guess.

Is stacking off profitable? I think yes

You need more then 38% equity here to make your call profitable (treating his raise as a shove to simplify), just give villain different ranges and see how your hand performs.
For instance if he is "shoves" only sets and couple of FDs this is a fold. Vs Fish here you could call a bit lighter since his range is going to be on average wider then vs a Tight player since you are going to dominate more often the "value" part of his range. That being said, in a vacuum this could be around the bottom of your calling range

Originally posted by nitrol
Man, I hate when people take something out of the context and try to be smart.

maybe would help if next time you spend a little more time argumenting instead of writing coockbook recipes

No need to type big texts if you can say it with few words.
It was written nice and clear but someone has to read it first...

Originally posted by nitrol
No need to type big texts if you can say it with few words.
It was written nice and clear but someone has to read it first...

Thats very incorrect since your answer, as usual, just satisfies barely the small context that its made for. Without an argument, for whomever is reading is impossible to extrapolate a notion that can be applied wider, making deeply correlated problems a bunch of coockbook problems. Which at the end., ironically, results in you being more verbose that u could be.