Turn 2 pr, facing raise

[mxrider]

Opponent has been playing fairly loose passive and floating a lot on me. We are also effectively 130bb deep. He's running 22/5/1.5 so far after 60ish hands.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (MP) ($110.25)
CO ($74.15)
Button ($66.40)
SB ($80.90)
BB ($44.30)
UTG ($11.80)

Preflop: Hero is MP with Q, J
1 fold, Hero raises to $2, 1 fold, Button calls $2, 1 fold, BB calls $1.50

Flop: ($6.25) 2, Q, K (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $4.75, Button calls $4.75, 1 fold

Turn: ($15.75) J (2 players)
Hero bets $12, Button raises to $30, Hero?

[given1982]

I fold this. A loose passive player isn't raising you here without 2pair+, and you've got the worst feasible 2pair.

[ThatDeviant]

Originally Posted by given1982

I fold this. A loose passive player isn't raising you here without 2pair+, and you've got the worst feasible 2pair.

Agreed.

[zayphod]

I dont see a fold as a bad thing, but I think the assumption of a loose-passive is a bit flawed after he has only played 12 or so hands out of 60. Maybe he has been loose and is not yet willing to stack off against unknowns (how do your stats look to him after 60 hands? has he seen you lay down to turn aggression when scare cards hit?)

I also think there is a slim chance that he has the same hand as you.

If you do call then you will be getting more than 3:1 on the river if he pushes (might as well push though if you plan on calling the river). I think the turn bet is OK but if you were thinking he may have had a KJ, KQ type hand at this stage then a check-call for pot control purposes is not bad here surely.

So after my long winded, meandering waffle, I think the fold is fine but a check call on the turn is better as it would have only been about what you bet anyway.

[nawhead]

How is someone with a 22 vpip loose? It's a decent vpip for any player I think. Maybe a bit on the passive side preflop, but not loose. I don't consider someone loose until they're 30+.

You say he was floating a lot. But saying someone's passive and also floats doesn't follow. To successfully float, it's my understanding that a player has to make a move on the turn with less than top pair when checked to. Just calling with a pair then checking behind when checked to doesn't qualify as actual floating. The type of player you're describing is a station, not a floater.

Since you didn't check to him on the turn, but bet into him and now he raises, it's logical that he's not on any sort of move. It's more likely he was just slowplaying or hit that turn. AT or slowplayed 22, maybe just had KJ and nothing's really changed on the turn, only he got stronger.

Even throwing in badly played AA, your hand's a dog.

Board: 2s Qc Kd Jh

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 23.896% 18.18% 05.71% 2520 792.00 { QJs, QJo }
Hand 1: 76.104% 70.39% 05.71% 9756 792.00 { AA, 22, ATs, KJs, QJs, ATo, KJo, QJo }

[ThatDeviant]

22 is loose for a 25NL player who isn't thinking about ranges and image.

[nawhead]

Originally Posted by ThatDeviant

22 is loose for a 25NL player who isn't thinking about ranges and image.

I don't quite follow. It sounds more like you're describing something else other than vpip.

I think having a bunch of 22/5 guys with calling tendencies on the flop who only raise monsters makes for a tedious, unprofitable game, and I'd be more likely to call the table a rock garden and not loose. They're sitting there trying to make nut hands as cheap as possible. They're not giving you a lot of action pre or post which is the opposite of loose.

The usual scenario is to pick up some dead money, like 20-30 bb's over 100 hands, then try to push your edge by putting out a 2nd barrel cause these guys usually aren't that strong anyway, then get trapped and lose all the profit and then some. Then you get coolered and the table breaks. Bleh!

[ThatDeviant]

Originally Posted by nawhead

I don't quite follow. It sounds more like you're describing something else other than vpip.

Nah, I'll explain.

When your average 25NL player plays a 22/5 VPIP game, he's loose passive. He's limping and calling with too many hands preflop because and bleeding money because of it. He doesn't have any notion of ranges (or what people think his is) and thus isn't playing most of his range for any other reason than to see a cheap flop and hope to hit.

Compare this to a 22/19 reg @ 100NL - he's playing the same amount of cards as the guy we're calling loose - except we'd typically call this player a TAG. The difference is the reason why this TAG is playing his hands and how he's playing them (much more raising, much less calling/limping). The main reason are obvious - to merge his range. When he raises he could have anything from AA to say T9s and thus is much less likely to bleed chips because of that.

A 22% game is actually 66+,A3s+,K7s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,A8o+,KTo+,QTo+,JTo. When you're only raising 5% of your hands it's pretty obvious what he has and likewise when he's limp/calling, calling 3bets and cold calling with the remainder of these hands (basically without any agression) and then playing them passively post flop I think we can safely calling him a 'loose' player - even if it's not as loose as the 67/1 players.

Does this make any sense to my thoughts?

[no eff eks]

^^^ Good post imo.

I agree that this is a puke/fold. There's just nothing he plays this way that we beat, besides maaaaybe AA/AK. Most of the time he's going to show up with 2pr or better, and the 2pr hands we beat are just not likely at all.

[nawhead]

Originally Posted by ThatDeviant

Nah, I'll explain.

When your average 25NL player plays a 22/5 VPIP game, he's loose passive. He's limping and calling with too many hands preflop because and bleeding money because of it.
[...]
Compare this to a 22/19 reg @ 100NL - he's playing the same amount of cards as the guy we're calling loose - except we'd typically call this player a TAG. The difference is the reason why this TAG is playing his hands and how he's playing them (much more raising, much less calling/limping).
[...]
Does this make any sense to my thoughts?

I understand you're using Loose to describe weak play and Tight to describe aggressive play, but I still think VPIP is VPIP regardless of his aggression. The first player is Tight Weak/Passive and the second is Tight Aggressive.

Seems unnecessarily convoluted to change the definition of "tight" to "loose" just based on aggression levels.

Using that logic, a 8/1 is Loose Passive. Which just doesn't make sense.