Low-mid pocket pairs

[AlexB]

Didn;t want to threadjack Lathum's poker question, but Larry's post about pocket 3s beating pocket As made me seek a bit of advice - how best to play low-mid pocket pairs.

Generally I've gotten into trouble with these hands, and hurt my chip count or gone out with them (case in point last night - was dealt pocket 9s and lost half my stack, then got dealt them again very next hand when I was properly short stacked and had put myself in the position when I had to go all in with them 2nd time, and lost again finishing 7th out of 270 odd, so not bad considering)

But generally I've started to just try and flat call, or call a minimum raise pre-flop, and then play aggressively if I flop a third, or all three cards are lower than my pocket pair with no likely flush or straight draws. If I see overcards or flush/straight draws, I fold, and if there's a reraise or larger than minimum raise pre-flop, I fold - generally I would follow this (normally) for everything up to and including at least 99.

Is this too weak, or would other people generally try and raise more aggressively pre-flop? I know a lot depends on position - but do people have a general rule as to how much they are prepared to put on low-middle pairs?

Any advice/tips gratefully received

[larrymcg421]

It really depends on your own playing style. You can play these weak or aggressive and there are positives/negatives associated to it. You have to pick the one that best suits you.

I personally play these aggressively. Make the guy with AK make a decision for his chips. Don't let him do it to you. Of course, you have to make good reads and try to avoid a higher pocket pair. Sometimes I run into trouble but I usually steal enough pots with this strategy to build a chip advantage when that happens. So I'm still in it even if I run into AA.

[cthomer5000]

I don't play no limit... but in limit:

I'll raise from mid-late/late position if I'm first in to try to steak the blinds.

I'll call if multiple people are coming to flop... and from that I need a set to start betting and at least an open-ended straight draw to think about calling.

Of course there are other situations where you're pretty certain you're up against high overcards, and can take the pot on a semi-bluff if the flop was low cards and you're up against 1-2 players only.

It's usually a fairly easy situation to feel out, IMHO.

[Lathum]

I agree with Larry, however in poker it is key to change your playing style. Position is huge of course and so is the betting progression. If you are facing a raise and a reraise or a raise and a few callers I probably dump the hand unless I have the chips to gamble with or I am short stacked.

If you have a hand like 99 and there are overcards on board and your opponent bets try re-raising them, you may lose some chips but you will get a good read on them in the process.

It all depends on how you want to go about it. If you always raise with middle pairs you can win alot of small pots vs.hitting a set and winning a huge pot.

The most important thing I can tell you is know when to get away, sometimes you have to force yourself to dump 99 or even JJ preflop and suck it up, I became a winning poker player when I learned to throw away the best hand, a diffucult concept to grasp, but remember, there will be another hand right after this one.

[korme]

The best hand, or a good hand Lathum? I see no reason to ever throw away the best hand possible.

[larrymcg421]

Well he said best hand not best hand possible. You should ocassionally be throwing away the best hand. You don't know it at the time, of course. But a player who never throws away the best hand is playing way too loose.

[JHandley]

There's a huge difference between the best hand right now and the best hand after the river.

[Maple Leafs]

So wait, help me out here... if you could somehow know where you stood at a given moment, and for the sake of argument excluding the "on the bubble in a tournament" argument, when would be a realistic time that it would make sense to throw away the best hand?

[larrymcg421]

What I was talking about is if you don't know if you have the best, which you usually don't. If you never, ever have thrown the best hand away, then you are either psychic or are not a good poker player.

[Glengoyne]

So wait, help me out here... if you could somehow know where you stood at a given moment, and for the sake of argument excluding the "on the bubble in a tournament" argument, when would be a realistic time that it would make sense to throw away the best hand? Even with a pair of aces pre-flop, you aren't exactly in a dominating position. You are in much better than a typical race situation heads up, but with two or three other players in the hand there are a good number of tournament situations where it'd be reasonable to lay those aces down. You have the best hand, but it might not make sense to call in every situation.

[MJ4H]

So wait, help me out here... if you could somehow know where you stood at a given moment, and for the sake of argument excluding the "on the bubble in a tournament" argument, when would be a realistic time that it would make sense to throw away the best hand?
I think you misunderstand.

By "throw away the best hand" I believe this is a possible scenario that is being referred to:

You have KQ on a board of KQ972 with no flush possible. Now you have a very good hand here. However, you can still be beaten. If you have a sufficient read on a player, you may feel strongly enough that you are beaten that you can fold this hand EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE THE BEST HAND. Say you fold to an all-in re-raise. Your opponent then shows K9o. Well, you folded the best hand. Don't be afraid to fold here is the point. Yes you folded the winner, but you have to be willing to fold a hand of that strength in certain situations and not beat yourself up even when you are wrong and fold the winner. Yes, it is a mistake, you would be better off if you had called. But it is often right to err on this side and be wrong in this situation than to be wrong more often in the other direction.

[Maple Leafs]

Even with a pair of aces pre-flop, you aren't exactly in a dominating position. You are in much better than a typical race situation heads up, but with two or three other players in the hand there are a good number of tournament situations where it'd be reasonable to lay those aces down. You have the best hand, but it might not make sense to call in every situation.I guess. We went through this a few weeks ago in the "theoretical WSOP" thread, and I'm still not really convinced outsided of the bubble situations.

What about a ring game, would it ever make sense then?

[Maple Leafs]

Yes, it is a mistake, you would be better off if you had called. But it is often right to err on this side and be wrong in this situation than to be wrong more often in the other direction.
My thinking probably clouded from having recently read a lot of Ed Miller -- he's constantly on about how folding the best hand is just about the worst mistake a player can make. Of course, he's often referring to limit games where a call is only one bet, so...

[JHandley]

Perhaps you've got a pair of 6's and the guy in front of you makes a large bet. You don't know which two over cards he has, but you know he's probably got 2 face cards, possibly a T, maybe even a 9 or there's still 8 overpairs that have got you in real bad shape. If you call you're effectively giving the guy 20+ outs to your 2 outs. You have the best hand right now, but, imo, you only have two plays, push in or fold. If you call, you're almost certainly going to have to fold on the flop.

Learning to fold right now so you don't have to after already putting in money is a tough lesson to learn.

[larrymcg421]

I guess. We went through this a few weeks ago in the "theoretical WSOP" thread, and I'm still not really convinced outsided of the bubble situations.

What about a ring game, would it ever make sense then?
I think everyone pretty much agreed that this does not make sense in a ring game. I'm with you, though. I'd never fold Aces preflop except in bubble situations. If I bust out with rockets, then I go grab a cold one and sign into the next tourney.

[JHandley]

Depends on how many ring games you're playing. You're talking about a statistical advantage of 5-9%. If you're playing a couple hours a week, I'm not sure you can play enough of these situations for the odds to catch up with you and for you to come out ahead without your bankroll taking a significant hit.

[bigdawg2003]

I try to see the flop as cheaply as possible with a low pocket pair, possibly calling a small preflop raise in hopes of catching a set that the other player(s) won't give me credit for. If I have good position and only one call, then I may go for a raise, but generally I don't commit a lot of money to the pot preflop with these pairs, and if I'm looking at a big (re)raise, I have no problem throwing the hand away. And of course I throw the hand away after the flop if I miss my set.

Middle pairs I play far more aggressively, generally always raising if the pot is unraised when the action comes to me. I also like to raise in early position with these pairs. The reason I tend to raise is that there are plenty of cards that can come out on the flop that could make my hand worthless fast. If I get raised I usually just call the raise as opposed to a reraise unless mine or the other player's chip count necessitates an all-in.

[Maple Leafs]

Perhaps you've got a pair of 6's and the guy in front of you makes a large bet. You don't know which two over cards he has, but you know he's probably got 2 face cards, possibly a T, maybe even a 9 or there's still 8 overpairs that have got you in real bad shape. If you call you're effectively giving the guy 20+ outs to your 2 outs. You have the best hand right now, but, imo, you only have two plays, push in or fold. If you call, you're almost certainly going to have to fold on the flop.

Learning to fold right now so you don't have to after already putting in money is a tough lesson to learn.I think I'm with you as far as the real-world application. But in this example, remember, the argument was that you knew you had the best hand. So the overpairs are out of the equation.

I can also certainly see the argument that calling makes no sense -- it's push or fold. (I'll admit it took me quite a few hands before I realized this, but I see it now.)

But if you know you have a small pair up against, say, AKo in a ring game, heads up... don't you have to push? Even if we say that nobody else has any money in the pot, you're still getting better than 50% on a chance to double up. With the possible exception of maybe 22 where the edge could be small enough to be eaten up by the rake, don't you have to take that bet?

(I guess the reason I'm so into these theoretical questions is that I'm still working on getting my head around EV and how it applies to poker. I realize that the real world application of this sort of question is essentially zero.)

[Pumpy Tudors]

The situation here is how to play "the best hand" pre-flop. JJ may be the best hand pre-flop, but that's because it could be up against something like A-rag or KQ. If someone raises you big with A-rag or KQ, you may know that you have the best hand (JJ is better than both), but you have to weigh risk and reward to determine whether you want to play that hand or not.

[Lathum]

Ok, let me clarify what I meant by best hand. First off, I would NEVER fold pocket aces preflop, I play to win. The only exception would be a satelite tournament where the top X people finish and I have nothing to gain by going all in if I am safely in.

What I mean by folding the best hand is something like this, you have JJ and the flop comes down 10H 8H 9S. At this point you probably have the best hand, if someone makes a big bet it may not be a bad idea to fold, you probably have the best hand, but there are way to many bullets to dodge. Your opponent probably has a hand like AH QH which gives him any ace, any jack, or any heart. You are actually 50-50 in a hand like this, and since you probably arent getting 2-1 on your money you should fold, even though 50% of the time you will have the best hand.

[Pumpy Tudors]

[...] if you know you have a small pair up against, say, AKo in a ring game, heads up... don't you have to push? Even if we say that nobody else has any money in the pot, you're still getting better than 50% on a chance to double up. With the possible exception of maybe 22 where the edge could be small enough to be eaten up by the rake, don't you have to take that bet?
Generally, I wouldn't push a small pair heads-up against AKo in a ring game, at least not before the flop. I can't speak for more experienced no-limit players, but I don't want to risk my money on that situation pre-flop. It doesn't give my opponent a chance to make a mistake. Sure, you can put all your chips into the middle and let the cards fall, but you're sacrificing your skill (and your opponent's possible lack of skill) for one hand. In a tournament, there are lots of situations in which you might want to push, but there's no reason to get into a race in a ring game. As long as you have money, there will always be more hands. Why be in a hurry to push pre-flop when you're maybe only a 6-to-5 favorite? Why not put in a moderate raise before the flop? If you get called and are fairly certain that your opponent has AKo, see if you hit your set or if the flop comes out low. That's when you start getting big amounts of chips into the pot. Many players can't let go of AK, and if the flop misses them, you're a much bigger favorite than you were before the flop.

[Lathum]

exactly Pumpy. I was just reading Super System 2 and one of the smartest things in there says way to many people treat their chips in a ring game the way they treat their chips in a tournament

[larrymcg421]

To me the difference here (low pair vs AK) is who put the money in first. If you've got the low pair, you want to make the AK guy wonder if you have KK or AA. If you're the AK guy, you want the low pair guy to wonder if you have a higher pocket pair. Whatver side of it you have, the idea is to make the other guy make a decision for his chips. This makes him either fold or have to call in a situation where he is at best a 53/47 favorite and possibly an 81/18 dog.

[JHandley]

I think I'm with you as far as the real-world application. But in this example, remember, the argument was that you knew you had the best hand. So the overpairs are out of the equation.

I can also certainly see the argument that calling makes no sense -- it's push or fold. (I'll admit it took me quite a few hands before I realized this, but I see it now.)

But if you know you have a small pair up against, say, AKo in a ring game, heads up... don't you have to push? Even if we say that nobody else has any money in the pot, you're still getting better than 50% on a chance to double up. With the possible exception of maybe 22 where the edge could be small enough to be eaten up by the rake, don't you have to take that bet?

(I guess the reason I'm so into these theoretical questions is that I'm still working on getting my head around EV and how it applies to poker. I realize that the real world application of this sort of question is essentially zero.)

A couple of things.

If you have 6's, then any hand someone is raising with has two overcards (with the usual caveat of knowing how the player plays in general). You do know roughly what the other player has, I'm not sure what the purpose is of having a thought experiment if you know exactly what the player has. Then it's just a matter of calling and seeing if he hit the flop, turn and river. The whole point is that you will never know exactly what the other player has. You make your bets and when you do decide to gamble, you make educated guesses, but you never know exactly, without any question, what two cards the other player has.

Back to the ring game question. Your 66 against AKo is roughly 54% to hold up (I didn't calc it, I'm pretty sure that's what I remember the odds being). My belief is, if you are playing a large number of these race situations a week, then yes, absolutely you push knowing that in the end, you will come out ahead. However, my concern is more for the casual player only putting in 3-4 hours a week playing poker who may only see a race situation 30-40 times a week. While you're going to win 54 times out of a 100, that means you will lose 46 times out of a 100. If you're pushing 10 bucks a pop and you're stuck in the middle of those 46 times, that can add up very quickly and someone who doesn't have a bankroll in the high hundreds is going to end up going broke and having to reload on a very consistent basis. That's why I think it depends on how much poker you're playing. If you're not playing very often, you may want to wait until you have a more favorable situation to get your money in. Again, I wholeheartedly agree that you are losing profitability, in the long run, by not pushing when you know you have an advantage like this. However, it's not quite as cut and dried as it appears. Sometimes it's better to wait until you have a much clearer advantage.

One of the things that I truely enjoy about poker is there is no absolute right way to play any given hand. That's kinda how this whole thread started, it just depends on your style, your mindset, your bankroll, your level of read on your opponent, your position and a host of other factors.

[Maple Leafs]

If you have 6's, then any hand someone is raising with has two overcards (with the usual caveat of knowing how the player plays in general). You do know roughly what the other player has, I'm not sure what the purpose is of having a thought experiment if you know exactly what the player has.Well, except that in the real world he could have a higher pocket pair. My guess is that if you include those in his range of possible hands, you're no longer looking at a EV+ situation as I understand it.

By interest in this is that now that I'm starting to grasp EV, I'm noticing plenty of advice that seems to go against it. I'm trying to get my head around that.

[JHandley]

Well, except that in the real world he could have a higher pocket pair. My guess is that if you include those in his range of possible hands, you're no longer looking at a EV+ situation as I understand it.

By interest in this is that now that I'm starting to grasp EV, I'm noticing plenty of advice that seems to go against it. I'm trying to get my head around that.

Ok, now I understand. So we can include all the overcards, but not the overpairs.

I'm not trying to argue against EV. I agree that it is a very important tool in helping you play winning poker. I'm just trying to explain that there are no absolutes. It's very easy to get into a habit of "If "x" then "y"". That can get dangerous.

Also, I don't know anything about your situation. You asked if there was ever a realistic time for someone to toss the best hand, and I think this is it. I don't play any limit at all anymore, so my advice comes from NL ring games. Limit is a very different animal, if you're only calling 1 maybe 2 BB's then you're probably going to want to raise.

Don't give up on EV, it will make you a profitable player, just bear in mind that there will be a lot of rough patches if you're only winning 56% of your all in's.

[kcchief19]

Without a doubt, this is the weakest part of my game right now.

I think the conversation has wandered from practice into theory, and I'm definitely more interested in practice. For veteran players, how do you play low or mid pocket pairs?

As a beginner, I tended to play these cards too long -- that is, I tended to play them and beat them all the way to the turn unless I got a real obviously clue, like someone re-raises my bet after an overcard hits.

As a more "experienced" player, I now typically tend to limp with low pocket pairs to see if I hit a set on the flop and then fold to any bet if I miss. I play mid pocket pairs a little bit more liberally, usually small bet pre-flop. If overcards hit, I will usually check the flop and fold to an overbet. If I have top pair after the flop, I'll bet more aggressively after the flop. I try not to put any money in or call any big bets on the turn or the river. Obviously some of this depends on the table and the play of my opponent, but that's my general strategy.

I know this is a bad way to play them, because obviously the more cards I see the less chance my low pocket pair has to stand up. I also tend to lose a lot with these hands. Doesn't do me a lot of good to have best hand 88 and then lose to a Q on the river.

So is the best strategy -- in general -- to get the hand over with as quickly as possible without risking too much? I should also note that I'm asking this more from a tournament/SnG perspective. I hate limit play and I'm a much better tourney player so that's where most of my experience is.

[JHandley]

I think the goal of a player holding pocket pairs has to be try your damndest to get the hand heads up. You don't want to have 8's playing against 3 other players. That should determine your strategy.

Let's take your 8's for example. You're on the button and there's a limper, and a raiser. You've still got the blinds behind you that are already into the pot a little bit. What you've got to assess is how much you'd have to raise to get it heads up. You may also consider just calling to see a flop if you think you'll get 2 or more people calling your reraise. Which might be the case if the players involved have much larger stacks then you.

In practice, I try (I'm working on my game too) to always raise signficantly with any pair to get it heads up. I may even push depending on the situation and take my chances. It's a higher risk/higher reward situation

[Lathum]

In practice, I try (I'm working on my game too) to always raise signficantly with any pair to get it heads up. I may even push depending on the situation and take my chances. It's a higher risk/higher reward situation

I kind of disagree here. if you limp in and get 3 callers then hit your set you could double or triple up unless there is a straight or flush draw. The odds of this happening are alot less likely, but the reward is much bigger and in tournament play if you hit a hand like that at the right time it can vault you into a huge position.

[JHandley]

I haven't seen that many situations where I'd get 3 callers of an all in after the turn. Also, typically, one of the 3 players has decided they're folding if they don't hit their hand on the river to damn near any bet.

It's just a tricky overall situation. Is it better to win a lot of small pots, the occasional big pot and lose huge pots(often fatal) or to lose a lot of small pots and win the occasional huge pot? There's no right answer.

[Lathum]

I haven't seen that many situations where I'd get 3 callers of an all in after the turn. Also, typically, one of the 3 players has decided they're folding if they don't hit their hand on the river to damn near any bet.

It's just a tricky overall situation. Is it better to win a lot of small pots, the occasional big pot and lose huge pots(often fatal) or to lose a lot of small pots and win the occasional huge pot? There's no right answer.
The key to playing a hand like that is trapping someone into thinking they have the best hand and let them bet into you, then string them along or come back over the top.

[JHandley]

Yes, but you said you could triple up. You're looking for 2 other people to call after you've put all your money in the pot. I don't find many of those situations.

I agree it isn't very hard to more than double up (tripling up would be difficult) if you've hit a small set. However, if you push, you've got a 50% chance to double up, or knock someone out and a 50% risk of knocking yourself out or taking a fatal blow to your stack. If you call, you've got an 8% chance to hit your set and more than double up or taking only a small hit to your chip count. That's a large downgrade in probablity with not as much upgrade in earnings.