(FR) 88 (co) - Set in a drawy (?) board

Seems like you played it alright with the virtual nuts on the turn.
57 and KK aren't to likely hands here. Off course he didn't 3bet yet pre-flop, but sample is small. Sizing seems fine as well on every street against a player that has a hugh gap between VPIP and PFR. It's to bad he has this time a monster, but he can easy play 2 pair or lower set like this I think.

Cheers,
SDK1987

Nh.

Lol. Cooler.

Flop you wanna bet big with a set on drawy board. Anythin within range of 66% to 150% of the pot should be alright. Then when you have 4x u can bet 1/3 for example, be creative, you can afford it at micros. Ott the same think, id personally go with pot bet or xr. When you stack, think about: does villain represent any credible bluffs or value hands? Is he ever doing this move with worse value hand than Im holdin (if yes u should call most of the time)? Just dont think in terms of "im at the top of my range" tjat would lead you to hell at nl2.

Originally posted by Mozzek
Just dont think in terms of "im at the top of my range" tjat would lead you to hell at nl2.

My god please. No. If there is one hecking stake where you can't fold the top of your range it's NL2 as they can spazz so much. Come on. Please be real.

Folding 88 in this spot is really bad play and big mental problem confering to paranoia. Really. Please take heavy medication and go see a doctor if you feel this happen to yourself. I'm not exagerating. It's come to that point.

I think you misunderstood me. There is no way in a million years Im folding 88. What I meant by the sentence you quoted was, that often people talk themselves into calling by using exactly this argument, which is bad imo. It´s bad, because it´s an argument, which comes into play if you wanna be unexploitable. Why you wanna be unexploitable? Because your opponent would exploit you if you weren´t. And nobody will exploit (well it´s instance dependant, but generally speaking we can go with nobody) you at NL2.

I was answering op´s general question on how I´d approach situations where I face shove. So that was my general advice .).

I still don't agree and your whole reasoning is vague and confusing.
There is no need to aim for GTO to refuse to fold the top of your range. Folding the top of you range is just (nearly) always stupidly silly. Dot. Talking about not caring to be exploited is a nonsense here. You just exploit yourself doing it lol.

Where I think you are right is if you replace "the top of my range" with "I'm too high in my range to fold". That's indeed something people tend to say before making a bad call. But on the one hand they can totally be wrong about being too high in the first place, and on the other hand being a little too high is a far cry from being top range. At micros there are indeed several spots where you should fold a little higher than theoretical. But that's all. It's not that much all in all.
So no need to go all general about folding a lot and not caring about balancing and all. That'd just be wrong and pointless pretty much anywhere.

Might be vague and confusing, it´s hard to generalize it as it´s a very complex problem. I´m not talking playing gto, im just saying what I would avoid in my thought process - which questions - and what I think will lead you on wrong path. I realize that u might take this as a nonsense, but I don´t know how to express myself better ♦.

Now, more technical side. Whether folding top of your range is stupid or not depends solely on your opponent. Whatever spot u´re in, if you are always beat, you don´t have to call in order to meet some calling frequencies. But you probably know this, I just wanted to point it out.

Again, when I was saying this, I was talking generally, not specifically about this spot, so that´s for the "talking about not caring to be exploited is a nonsense here".

Top of my range or too high in my range to fold. In the meaning I used it, or I wanted it to are the same, too high in my range to fold might just involve more hands. Yes, ppl can be wrong, this is technical part of the game. My point was that it´s important to think about situations well and not in counteruproductive (which is imo for example something like "this is top of my range, I got a crystal clear call GTO wise" - it´s good to know this, but there is much more important things like villains tendencies IMO).

I believe, that at microse there are A LOTS of spots, where you should fold with higher frequencies. Why else would it be considered as a passive limit if not for ppl not bluffing enough? Again, this is just my view on micros, I haven´t done research of tendencies there myself, but I´ve discussed it in past couple of times. However, I might be wrong, haven´t played there myself for a longer period of a time.

To sum it up, I wanted to say, that the way I see it, one should think about the lines in every spot and ask the right question and leave behind the wrong ones. I´m not talking about some GTO background - which is very good to have. Hope it makes sense to somebody, because I can imagine it might be very confusing as I written it, but as I said above, can´t express it better ♦.

The thing is, if a situation needs you to fold the top of your range, there is really something highly unusual about it, and probably you've played poorly somewhere to get there lol.

And between the top of your range and something high on your range, there can be a heck of a lot of a difference ! If your range contains 100 combos, that your MDF says you need to call 70 combos, then between the 1° top nut combo and the random 65th combo there's a far cry.
So really never folding the very top of our range could be more or less an absolute principle at poker in fact. But yeah there are lots of spots at micros (and not only) where you should theoretically call a certain percentage but better have to practically call a lower (but not null) percentage. Yet folding range is bad so don't go overboard.