I hate football to be honest, next manager is an irrelevance really unless we get the club in a better state off the pitch and have a solid strategy for the manager to aim to deliver on. The rumour of Martin O'Neill joining after the Euros can't happen (even if he would consider a job in the Championship) given the current set-up.
Cash has gone alright ta. Whatever Sky are doing lately seems to have brought a more regular inflow of players around the low, low limits I play which has been nice.
Figure I may well have reached my limit though, can't seem to get my head around the next steps up. Almost certainly lack of work rate. Fair play to those that do print money at the mid stakes levels (50-200) alongside a day job, solid commitment.
I'd start adding hand histories and asking for thoughts on here again, but don't think that's really what people want to see in poker chat.
Did anybody run good this weekend? Read diaries from Jac and RLT suffering and I fared no better - all well overdue variance in my case, but odd that so many outlaws seemed to hit the wall at the same time.
Admittedly, the dip in my account was then exacerbated by a call (by me) that made me question whether I'm worse at poker now than I was when I first joined Sky. WP me. That certainly won't be a hand I share anywhere.
For any hand-history geeks that do pass by, these are spots (to follow) that maybe leave me less obvious stuff to learn.
Should this be a check any decent proportion of the time, given that I'm pretty much telling people what my cards are after a cold 4-bet and lead the flop. Or is the board so wet that I just have to bet 100% of the time and hope to get called by AQ/KQ/KK, FD or maybe a stationey JJ/TT - and just sigh if someone hit a set / straight.
Callers were both recs. Initial raiser is uber nitty. Possibly an option to call 3b and hope he squeezes, but didn't really fancy the more likely option of playing OOP 4-way.
This another spot that always leaves me head-scratching.
Not sure I should fire 2nd barrel when Q pairs as I probably get nothing to fold which wouldn't have folded flop. Then realise my mistake and am all set to back down only to hit the river.
Snap check/call?
Lead river for value and fold to a raise?
Accept I'm crushed and 1-pair is not going to be good much of the time?
Thought it was an interesting read in light of alleged BOTS having infiltrated Sky games over the past 12 months. While I'm sure plenty of checks are in place to try and block them, there does have to be a point where there could be so many playing on the site that it simply swamps any checks and balances Sky (or any other site) has in place. Hopefully that time is still a way off though!
Would also be interesting whether you could potentially 1 or 2 table while inputting all info into a separate programme that allows you to make perfect decisions. Which I assume couldn't even be picked up by Sky (I assume some people already leave decisions to the last second just to avoid timing tells, so the delay while updating software unconnected to Sky in any way wouldn't be an issue).
I suppose that is an issue with most industries and things have to change over time. As it dawns on me that I still have 30+ years of work ahead of me, I certainly feel more vulnerable in my career (in financial services) and the likelihood of my particular role being disappeared within the next decade. And may not even have poker (in its current form) to wile away my days while searching for a new job
And a bit of tinfoil hat post.... https://www.pokertube.com/poker-news/poker-business-industry/tartainian-eight-creator-thinks-bots-will-beat-pros-in-three-years Thought it was an interesting read in light of alleged BOTS having infiltrated Sky games over the past 12 months. While I'm sure plenty of checks are in place to try and block them, there does have to be a point where there could be so many playing on the site that it simply swamps any checks and balances Sky (or any other site) has in place. Hopefully that time is still a way off though! Would also be interesting whether you could potentially 1 or 2 table while inputting all info into a separate programme that allows you to make perfect decisions. Which I assume couldn't even be picked up by Sky (I assume some people already leave decisions to the last second just to avoid timing tells, so the delay while updating software unconnected to Sky in any way wouldn't be an issue). I suppose that is an issue with most industries and things have to change over time. As it dawns on me that I still have 30+ years of work ahead of me, I certainly feel more vulnerable in my career (in financial services) and the likelihood of my particular role being disappeared within the next decade. And may not even have poker (in its current form) to wile away my days while searching for a new job Posted by shakinaces
Had a read at this very interesting the thing that makes me think is if you have a guaranteed way of making money like they claim you wouldn't tell a soul and just make money I think the only way they would profit is by people parting with there hard earned cash for a plpe dream
Our problem otr is we have all the missed flush cards
Given he can legitimately have all the pretty Qx hands, as well as 77/88 and the only real bluffs he can have are like 56s and 9Ts, or 76hh/79hh if he decides to use them as bluffs, as well as a couple of J or T high flush draws, I think we can comfortably x/f river. Don't think there are enough bluffs there and obviously no weaker value hands than ours.
I think I like checking the river as played over bet/folding though.
I don't see much that can call a 3rd barrell that we are ahead of, and it does give us the option of check calling v his smaller sizings when we don't have to be good as often as we do to call this one. He does have some worse hands but again I don't see that many.
I love the sheer confusing frustration of poker at times.
Ran OK across tables last night, no grumbles to be had, but overall was totally held back by what I thought was the 'softest' seat I had and a complete inability to avoid losing big pots.
The case for multi-tabling made, I'd have been around 6 BI down if I'd decided just to focus on this one table.
This pretty much summed up the night... and again no grumbles, I got off super cheap that apparently even the abso-nuts is insufficient to warrant ever raising
Hey shakin, just taking a look at the AK hand. Our problem otr is we have all the missed flush cards Given he can legitimately have all the pretty Qx hands, as well as 77/88 and the only real bluffs he can have are like 56s and 9Ts, or 76hh/79hh if he decides to use them as bluffs, as well as a couple of J or T high flush draws, I think we can comfortably x/f river. Don't think there are enough bluffs there and obviously no weaker value hands than ours. I think I like checking the river as played over bet/folding though. I don't see much that can call a 3rd barrell that we are ahead of, and it does give us the option of check calling v his smaller sizings when we don't have to be good as often as we do to call this one. He does have some worse hands but again I don't see that many. Sometimes they just got the better hand Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Hi Dohhh, yh I did opt for c/f this time. Remains a weakness though, the amount of times I'm all set to give up a bluff only to bink a pair and suddenly feel like I have to c/c given that there should* be an increased amount of bluffs when I've shown suddenly weakness on the river**.
* should, but I appreciate that on Sky particularly the average player is too passive to beat on you when you take this line with what is a marginal made hand on the river and ideally wants a cheap showdown.
** of course, there is also the need to factor in PDDS syndrome and oppo has spazzed the hand by calling twice with utter junk, or is suddenly over-valuing a small pocket pair and betting for 'value'... that's normally what I tell myself to justify the times that I do sigh call these spots
So, I prefix the post below with the comment that I in no way had, or will have, aspirations to play poker 'professionally'.
Was just intrigued enough to play about with some sums after seeing a post elsewhere on how it is no longer a viable option for those new to the game to see it as the road to riches that a group of players once benefited from (admittedly a group almost certainly much, much smaller than the marketing may have had us believe).
/> Taking it as a job replacement I assumed we'd put in 35 hours a week, for 48 weeks a year.
/> We play 100 hands per hour on a 6-max cash table.
/> We win at 4 big blinds per 100 hands (appreciate this is likely optimistic in today's game at NL100 and above)
/> Assuming we'd be 4-tabling NL100 I get that to equate to £26,880 pa (around £45k pa gross). A fair wedge to pay the bills and live your life, but little more than that in this day and age.
/> To break the £100k pa (net) barrier we'd need to 8-table NL200 and maintain a 4bb/100 win rate (£107,520 pa) or get up to 4-tabling NL400
My reckoning is that you'd probably need to touch that £100k pa level, given:
a) The potentially uncertain length of time you'll be able to play until the game ends / changes / you fail to maintain a suitably high win rate - essentially creating your own 'redundancy fund' for when you have to cease playing.
b) You need to cover the cost of periods of sickness, cover your own pension, make NI contributions and cover any other benefits working for 'The Man' may provide (eg healthcare, childcare, company car, discounted vouchers etc).
c) The requirement to earn sufficient to buy a home for cash, given the struggle you will inevitably face to get a mortgage based on such an uncertain long-term income.
Then we also need to factor in that we will need to factor in:
a) working unsociable hours - given that it is unlikely that 9-5 will be the optimum time to play (absence of drunk whales)
b) 'unpaid overtime' - given that we'd likely need at least 5 hours a week of study in order to keep ahead of the game and maintain our 4bb/100 win rate
c) potentially struggling to commit to work/life balance given the uncertainty as to when and for how long the best games will be running
Now...
I know there are other factors tucked in here, rakeback, promos etc - plus I am looking at Sky Poker only and it is a big wide world out there, but this seems like an awful lot of hard work to make an easy living.
I do poke my nose into the mid-stakes lobby from time to time and there often doesn't even seem to be 4 games running, while those that are look to often have 5 regs and maybe 1 random. Sometimes there is 6 regs, presumably accepting that their minimal edge against the weakest reg will be worthwhile to play based on rakeback. Does make the 4bb/100 seem that much more ambitious in games of that strength though.
Are there really that many recs these days that can afford to donk off online £100-£400 (or above) at a time in order to support someone playing professionally?
Presumably most bad regs at that level are still at least 'quite competent' and at least breakeven (pre rake) in order to continue playing at that level, meaning we'd only ever be able to beat games vs them at maybe 1-2bb/100?
Take my metaphorical hat off to those that are grinding out a living at this lovely game, but wow does it seem an almightily steep cliff for a newbie to climb!
I did feel obliged to scale that back down to a more standard '2nd income' level.
I'm not sure I often put in anywhere remotely close to 35 hours per week at poker, but 4-tabling a mix of NL10-20 for that long (4bb/100 win rate) gets me to somewhere around £2,700 - £5,400 pa.
Or in more depressing terms, 4 tables of NL20 at a hugely respectable 4bb/100 would equate to an hourly rate of £3.20
High rolling
Can't even count in rake-back these days, given that I tend to get around 400pts per week and receive nothing more than a £2.30 token and a few free-rolls I often can't play (not moaning, just how it is).
It is pretty ace as a fun hobby that is better than self-funding though.
Even if it has left me a lot fatter than the previous regular hobbies of running and football did.
Of course, all that is nonsense when you play / run alright at lower stakes, only to then join a soft-looking NL40 table and lose 5 or 6 pots that means 3 hours of play leaves you with just over £2 to show for your efforts
Think I mis-played this one. The only reg at the table had sat out while this played out, the others were recreational players. I'd only been sat at the table for one orbit and this was the first hand I'd played, but had watched for a couple of orbits before that and all the players dealt into this hand had limp/called at least once, most had done so several times.
Should be a fun game.
Hate min c/r, esp as he snap raised so had obviously decided he'd do so regardless of what me and the other guy in the hand did.
Then goes from a little tickler of a bet that I felt obliged to call, to a bomb that leaves us both committed.
Snap call turn, call any(?) river? Close eyes and shove all in on the turn? Fold? Other?
So nice to be going into the final day of the football season with nothing to play for, after an absolute joke of a past 12 months.
Aside from getting a proper structure in place at Forest before next season, plus a good manager (seemingly Gus Poyet, which would be alright I think), we really need to be free from the transfer embargo. If not then we'll be incredibly lucky to avoid being bottom 3 next year, especially as a continued embargo will likely see our current captain and most promising youngster leaving the club for pastures new.
Can't moan about poker so much, can easily moan about football. Seems nuts that because we don't get promoted we get an embargo, but because they do get promoted, QPR and Bournemouth break the same (nuts) financial fair play rule and merely have to pay a £7-£8m fine out of their premier league treasure chest with no other recriminations. Stupid rule.
Wonder if any of the top 8-10 this year will have fallen foul in their attempts to shoot for the stars.
So nice to be going into the final day of the football season with nothing to play for, after an absolute joke of a past 12 months. Aside from getting a proper structure in place at Forest before next season, plus a good manager (seemingly Gus Poyet, which would be alright I think), we really need to be free from the transfer embargo. If not then we'll be incredibly lucky to avoid being bottom 3 next year, especially as a continued embargo will likely see our current captain and most promising youngster leaving the club for pastures new. Can't moan about poker so much, can easily moan about football. Seems nuts that because we don't get promoted we get an embargo, but because they do get promoted, QPR and Bournemouth break the same (nuts) financial fair play rule and merely have to pay a £7-£8m fine out of their premier league treasure chest with no other recriminations. Stupid rule. Wonder if any of the top 8-10 this year will have fallen foul in their attempts to shoot for the stars. Posted by shakinaces
Oddly enough, we are inside the FFP guidelines (just)
Steve Evans the bookies favourite for the managers role. I hope they have messed up the odds as badly as they did with Leicester. Any name available at 5000/1 for the job must surely still be better than Widow Twankey without the drag outfit.
I was reading this article taking the positive side of positive 'table selection'
Interesting thought that Poker is probably the only 'sport' where cash money appears in title celebrations. It's like a game of 'Where's Wally?' to spot a WSOP bracelet amongst the piles of dollar bills that champions are pictured with.
No sign of the mega bonuses that the Leicester players must have earned from the title win when they were picking up the Premier League trophy at the weekend. Although it would have made a great site to have £50 notes raining down on to the pitch as they celebrated.
Which makes a fair argument that, as poker is much more about the money than the prestige, it makes total sense to always take the most EV+ move (ie choose to sit only with weaker players and, wherever possible, to their left) - taking the moral high ground only benefits the owners of the poker site (more rake payable).
Often wondered why that isn't always the case and there are tables with 6 regs playing each other. May make sense if in a live game (sure, we want to challenge ourselves against the best occasionally), but less so when they are all playing 6+ tables and therefore are unlikely to even be playing their A game. Regs, playing with the main goal of winning as much cash as possible, playing in games where the rake means they are going to struggle to even break-even over a decent sample size.
That said, in spite of the compelling argument the linked article makes, I can't bring myself to move seats mid-game. Table select and sit down in the best seat at the time, definitely, but move seats mid-game just feels too dirty.
Am I the mug for taking that approach when somebody else will, and the weaker player is going to donk his money off regardless of to whom?
Are there any significantly winning players that don't take seats against obviously inferior players?
Played a bit yesterday, was having a mare, then this happened.
FWIW I played it badly. I think turn is a definite check.
This has happened a lot lately though, albeit mostly in DTD. I don't know how I've got such a reputation as a bluffer that people keep calling me with 10-high?
In a less standard hand, be interested to hear comments on viability of this as a line.
FWIW oppo's limp seemed out of character. They are a decent winning player at higher limits than this. Figured that this narrowed their range to small/mid pairs, suited connectors, or weak Axs - it was unlikely they'd have a 10, and A4s and 54s are the only hands I crush, but I felt that if they were that strong then the raise would have come on the turn.
UTG+1 was spewy all round. He'd won some big pots in recent orbits by showing up in 3b pots with 72 and 83, made loose calls on flop/turn before he rivered oppos. Not sure why BU wouldn't have opted to try and iso him.
Trouble I often find in these spots historically is that I call flop but then often have to face c/c another two streets with no real idea where I stand by the river (ergo call flop, turn then fold river).
So 3b seems the best option in spots with this sort of dynamic. Albeit it's essentially turning 2nd pair into a bluff, which in a vacuum seems spewy.
Think my 3b here is fairly standard, reg has iso'd the weak limp, I've tried to re-iso but found myself playing a bloated pot vs two fairly aggro regs.
I was saved a decision by the shove. Is this remotely standard as a line by either oppo though?
Can't envisage seeing this hand play out in this manner in the nl10/nl20 games I normally frequent. Wondered if it is just a one-off, or the sort of approach I should be giving a greater consideration to if I continue to give the low stake games a bash.
Comments
Admittedly, the dip in my account was then exacerbated by a call (by me) that made me question whether I'm worse at poker now than I was when I first joined Sky. WP me. That certainly won't be a hand I share anywhere.
For any hand-history geeks that do pass by, these are spots (to follow) that maybe leave me less obvious stuff to learn.
Callers were both recs. Initial raiser is uber nitty. Possibly an option to call 3b and hope he squeezes, but didn't really fancy the more likely option of playing OOP 4-way.
Not sure I should fire 2nd barrel when Q pairs as I probably get nothing to fold which wouldn't have folded flop. Then realise my mistake and am all set to back down only to hit the river.
Snap check/call?
Lead river for value and fold to a raise?
Accept I'm crushed and 1-pair is not going to be good much of the time?
https://www.pokertube.com/poker-news/poker-business-industry/tartainian-eight-creator-thinks-bots-will-beat-pros-in-three-years
Thought it was an interesting read in light of alleged BOTS having infiltrated Sky games over the past 12 months. While I'm sure plenty of checks are in place to try and block them, there does have to be a point where there could be so many playing on the site that it simply swamps any checks and balances Sky (or any other site) has in place. Hopefully that time is still a way off though!
Would also be interesting whether you could potentially 1 or 2 table while inputting all info into a separate programme that allows you to make perfect decisions. Which I assume couldn't even be picked up by Sky (I assume some people already leave decisions to the last second just to avoid timing tells, so the delay while updating software unconnected to Sky in any way wouldn't be an issue).
I suppose that is an issue with most industries and things have to change over time. As it dawns on me that I still have 30+ years of work ahead of me, I certainly feel more vulnerable in my career (in financial services) and the likelihood of my particular role being disappeared within the next decade. And may not even have poker (in its current form) to wile away my days while searching for a new job
Ran OK across tables last night, no grumbles to be had, but overall was totally held back by what I thought was the 'softest' seat I had and a complete inability to avoid losing big pots.
The case for multi-tabling made, I'd have been around 6 BI down if I'd decided just to focus on this one table.
This pretty much summed up the night... and again no grumbles, I got off super cheap that apparently even the abso-nuts is insufficient to warrant ever raising
* should, but I appreciate that on Sky particularly the average player is too passive to beat on you when you take this line with what is a marginal made hand on the river and ideally wants a cheap showdown.
** of course, there is also the need to factor in PDDS syndrome and oppo has spazzed the hand by calling twice with utter junk, or is suddenly over-valuing a small pocket pair and betting for 'value'... that's normally what I tell myself to justify the times that I do sigh call these spots
Was just intrigued enough to play about with some sums after seeing a post elsewhere on how it is no longer a viable option for those new to the game to see it as the road to riches that a group of players once benefited from (admittedly a group almost certainly much, much smaller than the marketing may have had us believe).
/> Taking it as a job replacement I assumed we'd put in 35 hours a week, for 48 weeks a year.
/> We play 100 hands per hour on a 6-max cash table.
/> We win at 4 big blinds per 100 hands (appreciate this is likely optimistic in today's game at NL100 and above)
/> Assuming we'd be 4-tabling NL100 I get that to equate to £26,880 pa (around £45k pa gross). A fair wedge to pay the bills and live your life, but little more than that in this day and age.
/> To break the £100k pa (net) barrier we'd need to 8-table NL200 and maintain a 4bb/100 win rate (£107,520 pa) or get up to 4-tabling NL400
My reckoning is that you'd probably need to touch that £100k pa level, given:
a) The potentially uncertain length of time you'll be able to play until the game ends / changes / you fail to maintain a suitably high win rate - essentially creating your own 'redundancy fund' for when you have to cease playing.
b) You need to cover the cost of periods of sickness, cover your own pension, make NI contributions and cover any other benefits working for 'The Man' may provide (eg healthcare, childcare, company car, discounted vouchers etc).
c) The requirement to earn sufficient to buy a home for cash, given the struggle you will inevitably face to get a mortgage based on such an uncertain long-term income.
Then we also need to factor in that we will need to factor in:
a) working unsociable hours - given that it is unlikely that 9-5 will be the optimum time to play (absence of drunk whales)
b) 'unpaid overtime' - given that we'd likely need at least 5 hours a week of study in order to keep ahead of the game and maintain our 4bb/100 win rate
c) potentially struggling to commit to work/life balance given the uncertainty as to when and for how long the best games will be running
Now...
I know there are other factors tucked in here, rakeback, promos etc - plus I am looking at Sky Poker only and it is a big wide world out there, but this seems like an awful lot of hard work to make an easy living.
I do poke my nose into the mid-stakes lobby from time to time and there often doesn't even seem to be 4 games running, while those that are look to often have 5 regs and maybe 1 random. Sometimes there is 6 regs, presumably accepting that their minimal edge against the weakest reg will be worthwhile to play based on rakeback. Does make the 4bb/100 seem that much more ambitious in games of that strength though.
Are there really that many recs these days that can afford to donk off online £100-£400 (or above) at a time in order to support someone playing professionally?
Presumably most bad regs at that level are still at least 'quite competent' and at least breakeven (pre rake) in order to continue playing at that level, meaning we'd only ever be able to beat games vs them at maybe 1-2bb/100?
Take my metaphorical hat off to those that are grinding out a living at this lovely game, but wow does it seem an almightily steep cliff for a newbie to climb!
I did feel obliged to scale that back down to a more standard '2nd income' level.
I'm not sure I often put in anywhere remotely close to 35 hours per week at poker, but 4-tabling a mix of NL10-20 for that long (4bb/100 win rate) gets me to somewhere around £2,700 - £5,400 pa.
Or in more depressing terms, 4 tables of NL20 at a hugely respectable 4bb/100 would equate to an hourly rate of £3.20
High rolling
Can't even count in rake-back these days, given that I tend to get around 400pts per week and receive nothing more than a £2.30 token and a few free-rolls I often can't play (not moaning, just how it is).
It is pretty ace as a fun hobby that is better than self-funding though.
Even if it has left me a lot fatter than the previous regular hobbies of running and football did.
Think I mis-played this one. The only reg at the table had sat out while this played out, the others were recreational players. I'd only been sat at the table for one orbit and this was the first hand I'd played, but had watched for a couple of orbits before that and all the players dealt into this hand had limp/called at least once, most had done so several times.
Should be a fun game.
Hate min c/r, esp as he snap raised so had obviously decided he'd do so regardless of what me and the other guy in the hand did.
Then goes from a little tickler of a bet that I felt obliged to call, to a bomb that leaves us both committed.
Snap call turn, call any(?) river? Close eyes and shove all in on the turn? Fold? Other?
Aside from getting a proper structure in place at Forest before next season, plus a good manager (seemingly Gus Poyet, which would be alright I think), we really need to be free from the transfer embargo. If not then we'll be incredibly lucky to avoid being bottom 3 next year, especially as a continued embargo will likely see our current captain and most promising youngster leaving the club for pastures new.
Can't moan about poker so much, can easily moan about football. Seems nuts that because we don't get promoted we get an embargo, but because they do get promoted, QPR and Bournemouth break the same (nuts) financial fair play rule and merely have to pay a £7-£8m fine out of their premier league treasure chest with no other recriminations. Stupid rule.
Wonder if any of the top 8-10 this year will have fallen foul in their attempts to shoot for the stars.
I was reading this article taking the positive side of positive 'table selection'
http://thepokercapitalist.com/poker-ethics-table-selecting-bum-hunting/
Interesting thought that Poker is probably the only 'sport' where cash money appears in title celebrations. It's like a game of 'Where's Wally?' to spot a WSOP bracelet amongst the piles of dollar bills that champions are pictured with.
No sign of the mega bonuses that the Leicester players must have earned from the title win when they were picking up the Premier League trophy at the weekend. Although it would have made a great site to have £50 notes raining down on to the pitch as they celebrated.
Which makes a fair argument that, as poker is much more about the money than the prestige, it makes total sense to always take the most EV+ move (ie choose to sit only with weaker players and, wherever possible, to their left) - taking the moral high ground only benefits the owners of the poker site (more rake payable).
Often wondered why that isn't always the case and there are tables with 6 regs playing each other. May make sense if in a live game (sure, we want to challenge ourselves against the best occasionally), but less so when they are all playing 6+ tables and therefore are unlikely to even be playing their A game. Regs, playing with the main goal of winning as much cash as possible, playing in games where the rake means they are going to struggle to even break-even over a decent sample size.
That said, in spite of the compelling argument the linked article makes, I can't bring myself to move seats mid-game. Table select and sit down in the best seat at the time, definitely, but move seats mid-game just feels too dirty.
Am I the mug for taking that approach when somebody else will, and the weaker player is going to donk his money off regardless of to whom?
Are there any significantly winning players that don't take seats against obviously inferior players?
FWIW I played it badly. I think turn is a definite check.
This has happened a lot lately though, albeit mostly in DTD. I don't know how I've got such a reputation as a bluffer that people keep calling me with 10-high?
FWIW oppo's limp seemed out of character. They are a decent winning player at higher limits than this. Figured that this narrowed their range to small/mid pairs, suited connectors, or weak Axs - it was unlikely they'd have a 10, and A4s and 54s are the only hands I crush, but I felt that if they were that strong then the raise would have come on the turn.
UTG+1 was spewy all round. He'd won some big pots in recent orbits by showing up in 3b pots with 72 and 83, made loose calls on flop/turn before he rivered oppos. Not sure why BU wouldn't have opted to try and iso him.
Trouble I often find in these spots historically is that I call flop but then often have to face c/c another two streets with no real idea where I stand by the river (ergo call flop, turn then fold river).
So 3b seems the best option in spots with this sort of dynamic. Albeit it's essentially turning 2nd pair into a bluff, which in a vacuum seems spewy.
Think my 3b here is fairly standard, reg has iso'd the weak limp, I've tried to re-iso but found myself playing a bloated pot vs two fairly aggro regs.
I was saved a decision by the shove. Is this remotely standard as a line by either oppo though?
Can't envisage seeing this hand play out in this manner in the nl10/nl20 games I normally frequent. Wondered if it is just a one-off, or the sort of approach I should be giving a greater consideration to if I continue to give the low stake games a bash.