How to play pocket over pair

ryon341ryon341 Red Chipper Posts: 89 ✭✭
At what point should I be folding my overpair in this situation?

Both players sitting at $ 100.00 (approx) on a .50/ $1.00 table. Villain is a tight reg.

Hero in Hijack open preflop at $ 3.00 with :TD: :TC:

Villain in Cutoff calls

Flop is :6H: :7H: : :2S:

I'm trying to learn to play ranges rather than playing my hand -but I don't really understand how to do that. I have a good overpair. His range includes a whole lot more than just pairs, so I should have most of his range beat. I don't see much in his range that he could hit on this board.

Hero checks
Villain Bets 1/2 pot
Hero Calls

Turn: :6C:

Hero checks
Villain bets 1/2 pot
Hero Call

River :6d:
Hero Checks
Villain bets 1/2pot
Hero Calls

I know there is a better way to play this but I don't know what it is. Can someone provide some direction?

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,632 -
    What was your reasoning for checking the flop?
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Brews_and_CardsBrews_and_Cards Red Chipper Posts: 59 ✭✭
    edited January 29
    I prefer cbetting this flop with TT. We are vulnerable to overcards coming on the turn and river. And with no heart, we're vulnerable to flush draws completing as well. V's flatting range likely caps out at JJ. So we are ahead of most of his range. 77, 66, 22 are beating us obviously. But there are only 9 combos of those holdings available. We can extract value from Ax with hearts, 98s, and overcards with hearts that he may float with. Let's say we cbet 88-QQ and some hearts combos,

    I think we'd be better off checking our more nutted hands, AA, KK with hearts, for example. That allows us to check AKo with no hearts and other weaker combos.

    Our RFE is 33% here on the river. So we need to call with 67% of our range. TT is definitely in the that 67%. Folding isn't an option.

    I'm torn on whether or not we raise V's river bet. 77 and JJ are really the only hands I'm worried about. I think V could fire 88, 99 on three streets. I wonder if he checks top set with 77 on the flop as it misses most of our range. Without more information on V's habits, it's hard to say. How tight is he? If he never 3bets pre, I'm more likely to call and hope he doesn't show us JJ.

  • ryon341ryon341 Red Chipper Posts: 89 ✭✭
    edited January 29
    @TheGameKat Obviously, i don't really know when to Cbet. I've been told I was cbetting too much, so I stopped Cbetting as much as I was. I was OOP, so I let him make the first move.

    When I stopped Cbetting as much as I was, I started taking a lot more hands to the river. I can't say i'm winning any more than I was. I need a complete school on when to Cbet and when to check / call.

    @Brews_and_Cards you went through a LOT of stuff I don't understand, ie. "RFE" what is it, how did you calculate it?
    I think we'd be better off checking our more nutted hands, AA, KK with hearts, for example. That allows us to check AKo with no hearts and other weaker combos.

    Are you saying I should cbet weaker hands - and check/call only hands that are more likely to win? This reverse-logic is one of the areas I am having difficulty with. Should I be reading a Cbet from villain as an indication of a weak hand?



  • Brews_and_CardsBrews_and_Cards Red Chipper Posts: 59 ✭✭
    edited January 29
    @ryon341 No, definitely not saying that. That kind of thinking gets players trying to hide their big hands too much. Big pots with big hands, small pots with small hands is a good general rule to follow.

    I've got some friends who play casual cash games with me every couple of weeks. They can't help but try and play their big hands tricky. Limping AA pre, and checking back sets on multiple streets, etc. They end up winning small pots with their best hands. And they lose big pots, that they overplay with pairs and such.

    We certainly want to be able to cbet some of our weaker holdings. If we only cbet our good stuff, and check our weak stuff, then we can be easily exploited. So we take a polarized strategy and play some of our weak holdings the same way we play some of our best holdings. That makes it much more difficult for our opponents to figure out what we're holding.

    Edit: This strategy is also dependent on the situation. Sometimes we cbet our entire range. Sometimes we check our entire range.

    RFE is Required Fold Equity. It's calculated by Bet / (Pot + Bet). I'm sure there is RCP material around here that does a better job explaining it than I can.

    Basically, we don't want to allow our opponents to under-bluff or over-bluff us. So we break our range up based on the RFE and determine what combos we should fold or call with.

    Edit2: I also want to point that we don't follow these numbers blindly. We adjust them with our reads. If we know V is a passive NIT who never 3bets pre or bluffs the river, and could show up here with JJ+, we adjust accordingly.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 383 ✭✭✭
    And with no heart, we're vulnerable to flush draws completing as well.

    A bet doesn't change that, though.
  • Brews_and_CardsBrews_and_Cards Red Chipper Posts: 59 ✭✭
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    And with no heart, we're vulnerable to flush draws completing as well.

    A bet doesn't change that, though.

    True. Shouldn't have included that in my justification for betting.
  • ryon341ryon341 Red Chipper Posts: 89 ✭✭
    BTW, you are correct that he could be coming with JJ. He did.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,511 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not all hands are easy to play. Some are in betweeners. Your opponent could easily have 88, 99 here in addition to a 6 or possibly JJ, or 22, 77. Or QQ+ for that matter. Or maybe 98 or 2 hearts.

    You say you're out of position so therefore you "let him make the first move". But you can't solve the problem of being OOP that way. If you could, being in position wouldn't be much to talk about. I'm not entirely sure if by "move" you mean let him "act first" or give him an opportunity to "bluff". But either way, you're not really representing much by checking 3 times. This makes it harder to figure out what his action means because as I said you actually did act first and told him you missed and don't have an overpair, or less likely are slowplaying a set. If your opponent doesn't think you have an overpair here, it's harder to figure out what his bets mean. For example, betting gives him the opportunity to raise, and maybe that would have told you something.

    Another thing to consider is that we can't look at each street in a vacuum. We could say, for example, that on each street, if he's bluffing he's offering us 3:1 on the call, so we only have to be right 25% of the time to call. Rinse and repeat twice more. But someone who offers us 3:1 three times in a row is usually not bluffing with the same frequency as someone who does it once. It could be more or less, but usually it's less. His line has a lot of value in it if he's a tight player. But as mentioned previously, since you represented nothing, 88/99 could come under the value heading as he doesn't have much of a reason to put you on JJ+ as the streets go on.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file