One of the problems that many players face in NLHE cash games is how to play small pocket pairs against a raise. This is even more of an issue in full-ring cash games than it is in six-max because your opponents’ range will be wider than in full-ring games.

So you will be in a position where three betting with small pocket pairs in six-max games will be more profitable because of the fact that your opponents’ average range will not be able to withstand a three bet as often. This applies whether you have position on the button or in the cut-off or your opponent has position on you.

If you three bet sparingly in six max games, then three betting should generate a substantial amount of fold equity when you hold a pocket pair. However in full-ring games and especially online full-ring games, we have somewhat of a different story. The average style and mindset of a player who deliberately selects full-ring games over six max games online are clearly different.

So when a typical player open raises in a full-ring game online, their range is going to be somewhat tighter than the typical open raiser in a six max game. Let’s take a look at an online cash game to highlight what I mean here.

GAME: NL200 (10 handed)

RAISERS STACK: $272

YOUR STACK: $213

BLINDS: $1-$2

Villain opens to $6 from MP and you are on the button with the 4-4. In this situation, three betting is clearly a far more dangerous play than it would be in a six max game as your opponent’s hand is now coming out of a much larger field of players and therefore will be stronger on average (depending on opponent).

Three betting is not a terrible play even in a full-ring game, but it is still too aggressive against a typical open raising opponent from MP. The mindset of your average ring-game player at full-ring NL200 is nowhere near as aggressive as it is in a corresponding six-max game so you will be three betting a hand that will not fold most of the time.

So if three betting is too aggressive then the choice is clearly between calling and folding. With $9 in the pot so far and it costing you $6 to play, your immediate pot odds are only 1.5-1 which are not very good. So any call here would clearly be a play based on implied odds and not pot odds.

There are two areas that you need to assess whilst contemplating a call in a situation like this and that is the stack sizes of both you and your opponent and the relative strength of your opponent as well. You basically have to attempt to establish if you can overcome the terrible pot odds by calling by being able to extract more money through future betting.

Your chances to bluff will either be minimal in a heads up situation (if it ends heads up) or very expensive if you elect to float your opponent or look to bluff-raise them from the hand either on the flop or the turn. It is usually a mistake to generalize about players in low-stakes games because the diversity in average skill is wider than it is in high-stakes games.

Whilst your opponents stack is more than sufficiently high enough at 136BB (before the raise) to warrant the call, your implied odds may not be sufficient to make the call despite this. So you now might have to look at other factors and one such factor is the possibility of one of the blinds also calling. You must also consider what their stack size is and how well they play.

Against relatively poor players, calling even when getting poor immediate odds should show long term profit against deep stacked players or even moderately deep stacked players. All too often, I see players get needlessly stacked for 100BB+ in low-stakes NLHE ring-games when they have premium pairs or flop something like top pair top kicker type hands.

One such situation that I see novice/immediate players struggle to come to terms with is playing big pairs and TPTK type of hands when out of position. They seem to be very vulnerable to players set mining against them with position. A player open raises in NL200 to $7 and it gets called by the button and the big blind and there is now $22 in the pot…..the raiser has pocket kings.

The flop comes 10-9-4 and you are sitting there with pocket fours. The player with the kings realizes that with flush and straight draws out there he needs to bet something substantial to get rid of the draws and would prefer to take this pot right now with a pot sized bet and leads out by betting $22.

You decide to call and risk allowing the big blind to enter behind you ($250 stack before the hand), thus representing a draw. This is a double edged play as if a card like the J comes on the turn, the action could freeze up. But you can sometimes stack a player in increments here rather than in one big blow out with a raise.

You call the $22 and the big blind folds and the pot is now $66. The turn card is the 2 which doesn’t complete the draw that your opponent may be putting you on. Now they have a problem because the pot has escalated to $66. They won’t be happy about their flop bet getting called but they now have a dilemma. Do they check and show weakness and risk giving a free card in the process or do they bet out again making you pay for your draw? Many players at these levels will get stacked in situations like these and certainly at the NL50 and NL100 levels by betting to protect their hands from the drawing hands that they think that their opponents have. This is a serious reason for calling the raises of medium to deep stacked players with small to medium pocket pairs in low-stakes full-ring NLHE games.