Isolation

I think that creating a wide c/r range on the first board is a bit of a nightmare, if as you say it means you'll have to c/r a lot of 8x to balance. (I think 200bbs deep having to c/r 8x on that board vs a competent player sucks if he's got any kind of well tuned aggression in him( If you have a c/r as well as c/c range here, 45o is hand that falls very strongly in the c/c range, and you're way better off 3betting hands like J4dd Qh5x and so on. c/c 45o is no problem really, it's not like just because you take a c/c line you can't c/r a lot of turns or lead a lot of rivers.

So Lag2 in hand 2 is Trickett right? =P

Ah I get it. =) My mistake.

Also a huge factor to this is how he responds to a nai3b, his open%, and so on. A lot of players will just instant jam any Ax vs a nai3b, especially if you have history of 3b/folding a lot, and that makes 99 clearly much better as a 3b, and even 88, although it's quite thin. If the opponent also jams instead of flats KJ KT QT KQ, then arguably it's even better as we're put into tough spots way less often.

That's the same as a shove, essentially. Though arguably it can get you more fold equity, but that's more a trick thing (like betting 99 instead of 100) than a gameplay/balance issue.

Any hand that calls a jam will generally jam over that raise or call and not fold any flop (certainly not overcards, though QT might very well fold on Axx or Kxx).

Again it can be viable in a metagame kind of thing, but once the villain knows you're capable of making those plays with small pairs, they will treat your raises to half stack as essentially a jam, and you might as well just jam.

As played I like flop play, but on the turn, a lot of the hands he'd be playing like this on the flop will have hit the turn, so I prefer calling by far, expecting him to give up on lots of rivers, and actually being able to show down our hand a lot if he had air and our hand is good.

Sorry for pulling this back up after a while; I'd been away. Thanks Dan for your prompt response. I don't hold it against the video maker personally (much, anyway), I understand language like that is pretty common for the demographic, but it's quite something else to have a professional group implicitly accept and tolerate that kind of thing, and I'm glad you've immediately clarified the situation. Much respect.

And to the other posters, it's pretty dumb to imply that women should rightfully have some special inferior/lesser space within a marriage where they get told what to do and are subservient. Obviously historically that's the case, but historically black people have been slaves too, that doesn't mean it's right or acceptable to acknowledge as fact. Try swapping that to "now I'm in position and taking the betting lead, so essentially he's the black man in this relationship, and he has to pick cotton whenever I want him to, or let my children rape his daughters if they feel like it". Doubt that'd be acceptable, and yet it's essentially analogous to what was being said (though obviously not as explicit). You can take this as some sort of politically correct crusade, but it's not, it's just an attempt to act like decent human beings and make the world around us better. If RunItOnce is attempting to set its image as a professional platform, rid of all the misogynistic, bigoted, and degenerate behaviour often associated with poker "pros", then this is something they need to remove, and I applaud them for it. Also, no I'm not married, but when I do, I don't want either person involved to be "the woman" in our relationship, as defined by Mr Emmons, either, and I lose respect for anyone who would.

Again thanks Dan.

Well he just means that assuming his vpip OTB is something like 80%, but the majority or all of it is in minraising, then his raise range has a significant % of raise/fold, enough for us to profitably jam.

I agree. Basically the higher your pair compared to your non paired cards, the more likely you should play the pair.

If you have like AcQc9c Qd 5s, I think the decision becomes a lot closer. If it's Ad instead of Qd, I wouldn't be sure. Certainly if it's Ac6c7cAdQs I'd be more likely play the pair.

That said I haven't done the maths on this yet, so I could be wrong. Most of my experience is also HU and 3-way, so perhaps that's not valid. Being UTG sucks in these spots I imagine, as the decisions become a lot simpler once you've seen the dead cards.

Someone who opens too wide, but also calls jams wide would make this more a flat than a rejam, by the way. I would not rejam this unless villain exploitably raise/folds too much.

This is definitely not a shove/fold spot pre. Defending 47s is fine vs some opponents. We're getting great pot odds, an spr that allows us to play our hand very well (especially vs someone who cbets a bad frequency), and also have limited RIO.

Flop I would generally c/r because our hand is quite vulnerable, but also has decent equity when called.

In general the play with 22-88, and certainly even 99 at times, is to rejam vs a minraise. The value of bluffing off two overcards, not playing the pot out of position and giving villain better playability, and also just taking the dead money in the pot, is generally worth the jam.

Range composition-wise, if we want villain's cbets to be less profitable, we should look to flat hands like KK AA pre, or just straight up c/r bluff more on flops, or c/c a wider/lighter range (including high cards) and see showdown more, instead of insisting upon flatting hands like 22-88 pre. There are some villains that it might be slightly better to flat or 3bet small with 88-77, but they are probably playing overly exploitative post and/or pre.