2 AK hands

PokerStars Game #3119784086: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2005/11/21 - 16:24:42 (ET)
Table 'Crux II' Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: NUTorious1 ($47.50 in chips)
Seat 2: GaFaMM ($56.15 in chips)
Seat 3: buzzerbeater ($97.55 in chips)
Seat 4: WildBob182 ($62.95 in chips)
Seat 5: MissBrill ($52.20 in chips)
Seat 6: Armbar ($117.75 in chips)
MissBrill: posts small blind $0.50
Armbar: posts big blind $1
NUTorious1: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to WildBob182 [Kd As]
NUTorious1: checks
GaFaMM: calls $1
buzzerbeater: folds
WildBob182: raises $3 to $4
MissBrill: folds
Armbar: folds
NUTorious1: folds
GaFaMM: calls $3
*** FLOP *** [Jh Kc 5d]
GaFaMM: checks
WildBob182: bets $6
GaFaMM: raises $6 to $12
WildBob182: ??

PokerStars Game #3119813917: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2005/11/21 - 16:28:24 (ET)
Table 'Crux II' Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: NUTorious1 ($51.90 in chips)
Seat 2: GaFaMM ($126.10 in chips)
Seat 3: buzzerbeater ($88.55 in chips)
Seat 4: WildBob182 ($40.50 in chips)
Seat 6: Armbar ($116.25 in chips)
WildBob182: posts small blind $0.50
MissBrill: is sitting out
MissBrill leaves the table
Armbar: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to WildBob182 [Kh Ad]
NUTorious1: raises $2 to $3
GaFaMM: folds
buzzerbeater: folds
xxcalimero joins the table at seat #5
WildBob182: raises $9 to $12
Armbar: folds
NUTorious1: calls $9
*** FLOP *** [Ks Jd Qc]
WildBob182: ???

Hand 1: I'm more inclined to gamble with a 50ish big blind effective stack size. I probably re-raise all in and cackle with glee, but hands like this are the reason I track players.

Hand 2: You put yourself in a position to make difficult decision(s) for a lot of money. DUCY? As played I think you have to bet that flop.

Do you think I should have just called on hand 2 and seen a flop?

Originally Posted by WildBobAA

Do you think I should have just called on hand 2 and seen a flop?

Sorry, I assumed a 100bb effective stack size. With 40bb stacks this hand plays very different. I like the re-raise and think you need to play for stacks here.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by WildBobAA

Do you think I should have just called on hand 2 and seen a flop?

Sorry, I assumed a 100bb effective stack size. With 40bb stacks this hand plays very different. I like the re-raise and think you need to play for stacks here.

Ok, I feel a little better now. I pushed both of these. KJ first hand AT second.

2 buyins gone in 5 mintes. Then on my other table JJ flops set vs my KK. Think I might take a long break.

[quote="Fnord"]

Originally Posted by WildBobAA

With 40bb stacks this hand plays very different. I like the re-raise and think you need to play for stacks here.

Do you have to play for stacks on the flop? I guess the way I see it only a hand that beats you calls those all ins on the flop (especially hand 1 after the check raise- while KQ might fold the flop but call a push on the turn).

Is playing for stacks on the flop with TPTK something you should only try at higher level and not advice to follow at the 25NL games?

Originally Posted by RubixSoHo

Is playing for stacks on the flop with TPTK something you should only try at higher level and not advice to follow at the 25NL games?

It's a re-raised pot and the money isn't deep. Two good reasons to take TPTK to the felt.

This is a really horrible board for a pair, but with $25 in the pot and only $28 behind I don't see how he gets away from it with no read on the PFR's range. Check/folding looks pretty darn weak and any bet at the pot leaves us around 5:1 to call the rest.

you gotta watch out for that check min-raise on the flop, usually is a very good hand from what i have seen.

Originally Posted by STIdrivr

you gotta watch out for that check min-raise on the flop, usually is a very good hand from what i have seen.

That's what I'm seeing, but I'm still getting a grasp on betting patterns from mediocre to badish NLHE players. I'd not ready to abandon ship on sight, but I'm certainly going to try to figure out who I'm dealing with and put all the pieces of the puzzle together. With a larger effective stack size, I'm done without a read. Around the 40ish to 50ish range I'm more inclined to gamble.

Hand #1 the man only has $56, he can easily do this move with something like KQ or AQ/QT either way your hand is most likley ahead, I would reraise him all in, I find anyone who does not buy in wih the full bankroll has a wilingness to gamble, anyone under 60BB's I put them all in I dont take their crap.

Hand #2, hm a man raises $3 from UTG, at this level there are still truckloads of donks but at least many of them understand that you need a big hand to play UTG. Considering the man is half-stacked, I suspect he would be inclined to push QQ+, i suspect he may have something in the range of Mid-Low PP (TT -22) or something like AJ/AQ/AK, KJ/QJ are almost impossible but with the donks your never 100% sure, considering the small stack sizes, I think optimally you are playing for stacks here if he decides to give you action.

A very important note: I HATE PLAYING WITH SMALLSTACKS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE FULL BUY-IN DON'T PLAY

Originally Posted by TalentedTom

A very important note: I HATE PLAYING WITH SMALLSTACKS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE FULL BUY-IN DON'T PLAY

Glad to see the high level of thinking comming from our best posters.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of players would be well served by a 50bb buy-in. I certainly would buy-in short if I ever returned to the Pacific 200 game.

Originally Posted by TalentedTom

A very important note: I HATE PLAYING WITH SMALLSTACKS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE FULL BUY-IN DON'T PLAY

What is your rationale for this? In may ways I think a shorterstack is easier to play in a cash game. I can afford buying in for $100 but I prefer playing with a shorterstack. There's a section in Barry Greenstein's book that talks about the advantages of buying in with a shortstack and he says that he buys in for the minium when he plays.

I'm not saying this is better but it fits my style better. I would like to know why you prefer a larger stack.