30/60 Canterbury hand

[bicyclekick]

Real good 30/60 game at the track last night.

Pretty good player (nathaniel) who plays a little loose, but not too overaggressive or retarded or anything and I'm almost sure is a winning 30/60 player opens in mp and gets cold called by 3 fish.

You have AKo in the sb, what's your move and why? If you think it matters, the BB is me (so a decent player in the BB).

[Joe Tall]

You 3-bet and get all the overlay from the clowns while knocking a player out who doesn't know the value of AK. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Chris Daddy Cool]

maybe i'm just a lowly small stakes player, but this seems like a ridiculously easy 3-bet to me.

[bicyclekick]

The player in the SB was a really solid player who is a real substantial winner and we got into a really heated debate over this hand actually.

I, like you guys said it's a really easy 3 bet. Things like that hadn't previously crossed my mind, much. I would just do it because AKo is almost surely the best hand and i'm proffiting from the fish in the pot with substandard hands.

I presented this hand to another solid player who said he ran that exact sim in turbo texas holdem and he also claimed that you should be calling pre-flop as you will make more money post-flop. A big part of it was being out of position with a field of players who isn't going anywhere. You can do a better job building a good pot when you want post-flop if you didn't 3 bet pf.

I then presented it to another solid player who also advocated calling and backed it up with the same stuff.

That's why i posted the question here. I want to hear some more solid players oppinions.

[stoxtrader]

I think its a pretty easy three bet.

[mmcd]

I think 3-betting is better here also, but one of the things that you must take into account here is the positioning of the players in the pot already. The fact that theres two loosies to act after the player with the lead (but before you assuming you check) tends to weigh in favor of letting the original PFR keep the lead in this hand.

OTOH, if the flop comes such that your nut no pair is probably the best hand, this creates a rather untenable situation unless the PFR will auto-raise if you bet out on a ragged flop.

3-betting is still better for a number of reasons but it is somewhat close IMO.

[bugstud]

I think it depends on what the player will 4bet with, given the 5 bet cap.

[Schneids]

I have had very similar debates with Scott about this. It has a little legitimacy when you have decent hand reading, very aggro opponents in on the hand who will use their PF read to misapply aggression post flop... However, the problem is it's so rare when you'll flop a good hand and they will flop a slightly worse second best for you to be able to take advantage of it.

I did see a hand where Scott called Foxy's raise against 4-5 limpers with QQ in the SB and then was able to peel off 4-bets on the turn against (I assume) Foxy's overpair on a Q-high board.

It all looks real great when you both have big hands, and it makes you look like a genius in that one instance, but the preflop overlay you're giving up every time you don't 3-bet simply CANNOT be made up postflop.

I'm going to guess that in this particular hand Scott made broadway and Nathan had top set and went many many bets with Scott because he simply assumed Scott would 3-bet with AK, and now Scott says his call was so great for hiding his strength when really he isn't going to get such a generous board again for such a long time...meanwhile slowly sucking away every cent of equity he earned from his one smooth call.

[I_am_B]

Greetings veteran 2+2ers. The player-in-question in this hand is myself, but before I present my case I will say that I believe this thread is a deliberate suckout to finally get me posting on these forums /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, of which I will gladly raise the full amount. With that, I'll begin....

Obviously, one of the great dilemmas in this game is acting correctly upon the relative holdings of your opponents to your hand. And it's conventional to reraise AK in almost all situations relating to a raise and double-cold call (not triple, like bike said, there were two callers to me in the SB, making me the 4th to enter), but I think there are multiple reasons why calling MIGHT be a better play (this is me attempting to explain my intuition).

1. We are discussing the live Canterbury 30/60 game, not any online game, which are different animals. Simply playing properly preflop with straightforward postflop play is indeed good enough to win, but in a game where someone with as tight of an image as me comes in on a reraise, if my A or K hits, I get zero extra post-flop action unless I am beat. Fishy players at those limits often play remarkably correctly, especially against straightforward tight players, postflop.

2. This may be the most important reason, but it has to do with the relative favoritism of AK over other hands. AK is the statistically most volatile hand to extra players entering. The more players, the worse off AK is to win the hand. Why does this matter? Because giving extra pot-odds to players in a 4-5 way pot (note, this is the most important element of this segment, see aside at the bottom) with only a slight edge can cause you to lose multiple big bets on the later streets, encouraged by their now-correct play, by you putting more into a pot that you aren't that big of a favorite to win (and again, killing your extra postflop action, giving you little indication of where you are at if you don't hit the pair).

3. A key element of this hand is that I was in the SB. Had I been on the button, it would have probably been an automatic 3-bet. Why? Obviously, the ability to purchase (if I'm not the button) and maintain the final position gives me a huge advantage postflop in playing correctly and reading my oppts. By reraising out of the SB and if I miss the flop, what do I do? Check-call the flop meekly (unless I had set a previous precedent by acting the same with an overpair or top set) or bet out stubbornly, attempting to read/guess/pray that Mr. Rainbow Trout is going to lay down his 5 on the turn...or even the river? Being read needs to be taken into account as well. By reraising preflop in the SB, you make yourself first to act on the flop, therefore having to react first to the flop -- this gives even the average player a decent chance into reading into what you have, yet another reason why their play is either slowed down if you hit or call-induced if you miss (and throw out a weak-seeming bet).

4. And finally, as Schneids, or I should say Snides, commented, there is potential in getting some of those lost preflop bets back with acute postflop play (especially considering people will not be putting me on AK, having come in with a call). This will be enough to make a few extra bets, certainly not to make up for the lost preflop value. BUT, pots can also be picked up with just ace high if you have a good enough feel that nobody has a strong hand in spots where I couldn't pick them up if I had reraised preflop!! This should be easy to understand -- I am a VERY strong value player postflop, and the pot is smaller so there is less to lose when I check-raise the flop or turn on some given redraw against a player that respects me (of course, this hinges upon my ability to interpret what they have). And like I said above, the added certainty later in the hand makes up for what often are stupid lost bets/crying calldowns, thus again saving some of that preflop money. Additionally, there is a not-so-minimal amount of psychological value that is gained in having your opponent completely misread what you have by thinking that you'd normally reraise AK. It could be them folding a hand like 77 in the C/O after you open-raise mid with a weaker holding when they'd otherwise reraise, or them laying down middle or TP bad kick on the turn out of respect incorrectly in a future hand. Or even more exploitable: a well-timed future semi-bluff turn raise. I want my opponents to not just believe I am better than them, but to feel the wrath of my ability over them every time I'm in a pot with them (ok, maybe a little overblown /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). But you get the point. Fear is quite readable.

More than ever, I am trying to take my game to a point where I have as much certainty about the given situation that I am in as possible so I can make the most correct play. That call right now is part of my evolution as a poker player -- maybe in the future, I'll be good enough to be able to make that 3-bet and not put in incorrect money thereafter, and maybe some of you are that good. But I don't think too many are, and I certainly accept some fallibility in my argument, but there are real considerations that I feel I've presented and would love replies on.

The aside: In principle, I see AK, barring the AA or KK tell, as a near-auto-3 bet hand heads up or 3 way, 4 or 5 way in the case that I explained, and for sure with 6 or more. Why would I 3-bet AK with 4 CCers in the above case but not 2 or 3? Because it is pure value at that point -- the point of the hand is for me to hit an A, K, or lucky straight, not to win pots with ace high. I feel like I'm certainly a better than 1/6 to win those pots in a 6 way pot with decent payoffs since the pot's huge.

Ok, enough for one post. :-) All flaws can be pointed out and repudiation welcome. I am evolving as a player just as much as the rest of us.

SL

[Schneids]

I am not in an ideal state of mind to respond to this post right now, but I really hope more people read this and give some input on what they think.

Maybe tomorrow when I am able to more thoroughly reconsider what you've said I'll make a more adequate response. For now, I hope others will....

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not in an ideal state of mind to respond to this post right now, but I really hope more people read this and give some input on what they think.

Maybe tomorrow when I am able to more thoroughly reconsider what you've said I'll make a more adequate response. For now, I hope others will....

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto.

[Michael Davis]

Okay, I'll chime in even if it doesn't add anything.

Essentially, this is correct: "It all looks real great when you both have big hands, and it makes you look like a genius in that one instance, but the preflop overlay you're giving up every time you don't 3-bet simply CANNOT be made up postflop."

You aren't going to make big hands that often. Deception simply isn't that important in a large, multiway pot with a bunch of monkeys. Even if another decent player or two is in the hand, it doesn't matter. Their reportoire is similarly hamstrung by the monkeys.

-Michael

[Lawrence Ng]

Hi there I_am_B,

I re-read your 1st post over and over and over again. 4 times. Guess what? I can't find one problem with it. Great 1st post.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, this is correct: "It all looks real great when you both have big hands, and it makes you look like a genius in that one instance, but the preflop overlay you're giving up every time you don't 3-bet simply CANNOT be made up postflop."

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not missing the 3-bet "everytime." It's only in the SB with multiple callers after a raise. Surely if the situation, scenario is different then it warrants a 3 bet. If everytime this scenario were to come up, then the correct move is to just call in the SB.

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't going to make big hands that often. Deception simply isn't that important in a large, multiway pot with a bunch of monkeys. Even if another decent player or two is in the hand, it doesn't matter. Their reportoire is similarly hamstrung by the monkeys.


[/ QUOTE ]

But in this case, it's not about deception. It's about maximizing the value, minimizing the risks involved for AK offsuit. Multi-way, it's going to be played as a post-flop hand and as I_am_B stated, that's where were the value of it comes in. If AK offsuit misses, we'll it's an easy fold and the player minimizes his risks. So all in all, the EV is much higher imo.

[I_am_B]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi there I_am_B,

I re-read your 1st post over and over and over again. 4 times. Guess what? I can't find one problem with it. Great 1st post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woohoo! Thanks Lawrence -- I hope to contribute much and learn even more on here.

[Michael Davis]

"But we're not missing the 3-bet 'everytime.'"

Yes, we're missing the threebet every time it comes up in this specific scenario. Hand is too good to give up this kind of equity.

"It's about maximizing the value, minimizing the risks involved for AK offsuit."

Maximizing the value and minimizing risk sometimes don't go hand-in-hand. We have an edge. Our edge is not going to be made up by any postflop strategic advantage.

"If AK offsuit misses, we'll it's an easy fold and the player minimizes his risks. So all in all, the EV is much higher imo."

I don't think a missed AKo is an easy fold in a multiway pot whether it's gone two bets or three bets preflop.

-Michael

[Michael Davis]

"Simply playing properly preflop with straightforward postflop play is indeed good enough to win, but in a game where someone with as tight of an image as me comes in on a reraise, if my A or K hits, I get zero extra post-flop action unless I am beat."

I don't see why this is a bad thing, at it seems a further reason to threebet. Your opponents are going to fold in a 15 small bet pot everytime an A or a K hits the board and they only have a lower pair or something? They are always getting FTOP to call your hand if they picked up anything.

-Michael

[mikelow]

three-bet. I think this is an easy decision based on your player descriptions.

[Ezcheeze]

Don't let those suckers fill your head with their garbage. Have you been running bad lately or something? Clear 3-bet, this exact situation has been covered many many times on these forumns. The preflop value you lose just will not be made up postflop especially since the pot is already gonnna be pretty big if you don't 3-bet.

-Ezcheeze

[Ezcheeze]

"More than ever, I am trying to take my game to a point where I have as much certainty about the given situation that I am in as possible so I can make the most correct play"

That is a great thing to aspire to. However, in this situation you are sacrificing EV for that certainty and only that certainty. You aren't sacrificing EV preflop to gain postflop EV, you are just sacrificing overall EV for certainty. Sometimes you will be putting in money postflop with very little idea of how many outs you have or where the other players stand. I say: so what? It's still more profitable than the alternative.

You mentioned that calling can gain you deception. This is very true but you can accomplish this by sometimes calling with AK to throw off the more observant players, so that they can never be totally sure you don't have AK if you don't reraise. There is no need to always just call, doing it sometimes (and rarely since you will be sacrificing EV) is enough.

By the way, welcome to the forum!

-Ezcheeze

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
but in a game where someone with as tight of an image as me comes in on a reraise, if my A or K hits, I get zero extra post-flop action unless I am beat. Fishy players at those limits often play remarkably correctly, especially against straightforward tight players, postflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

But with one raiser already, aren't fishy players aware that when an Ace flops, that if they don't have one, they are likely behind? And unless you have a very strange brand of fish, if they have a weak Ace, and flop an Ace, they are going to call down through the river. So, I don't think a reraise preflop, will make a fishy player fold an Ax hand on the flop or turn, when they catch an Ace.

Since you won't get as much action post flop, when you hit, isn't it more important to get the money in preflop?

Aren't you going to have a problem that whenever you bet or check/raise it is going to be seen as a very strong hand, due to your image, regardless of the preflop action?

[Bob S.]

Well...I'm with Lawrence Ng and I_am_B on this one. Why do so many posters on here have the approach of "I have AK, CLEARLY I have the best hand, I am giving up too much equity if I don't 3 bet now." The other comment I keep hearing over and over is that "The equity you are giving up preflop CAN'T be made up post flop". Are people missing the fact that if he 3 bets preflop and brings in 4-5 extra small bets that isn't what he is actually gaining, rather only small fractions of those bets??? If UTG open raised with say AQ and was coldcalled by say a 99, What is his edge over those two players alone??? not to mention the rest of the field. Now on a favorable flop doesn't he gain a larger fraction of a bet for every bet put in after the flop??? I don't know, maybe I'm lacking in understanding basic concepts and just ranting here. So many times I see posts that seem to revolve around just what is being held by the player and not taking into account the whole situation. Anways, welcome to the boards I_am_B and keep up the great posts, I would have done the same as you.

Bob S.

[Gata Kamsky]

I think 3-betting can be a good idea at times if you can get some people out. If you can't get anyone out by 3-betting because the table is calling anything that's 3-betted your wasting your money. The reason is your giving pot odds on the flop and turn to people to call with mid/bottom pairs since the pot is so big. A-K doesn't do well with many callers, nothing does well when you have a large number of callers trying to draw out on you unless you flop a set or 2 pair/straight. So if you can get anyone to fold it's a worthwhile conjecture, personally I'd rather raise in SB if I know the table is normal/tight but if noone's going to fold I'd rather save my money, why give them odds to draw on you?

[spamuell]

I am pretty surprised no one has really commented on paragraphs 2 and 3 yet, that is where the fallacy lies:

[ QUOTE ]
Because giving extra pot-odds to players in a 4-5 way pot (note, this is the most important element of this segment, see aside at the bottom) with only a slight edge

[/ QUOTE ]

You have WAY more than a slight edge over most cold-calling hands.

[ QUOTE ]
by you putting more into a pot that you aren't that big of a favorite to win

[/ QUOTE ]

Pre-flop, you are a significant favourite. Run some sims if you want, I can't now as I'm at work but I might do some later. Post-flop, even if you miss, you don't even need to be close to a favourite to warrant putting money in the pot, as you're likely going to be getting nearly 20:1 or even if it's two bets to you 10:1 odds from the pot. And this overlay is from the money that your opponents lost by putting in money pre-flop when you had a significant edge.

[ QUOTE ]
By reraising out of the SB and if I miss the flop, what do I do? Check-call the flop meekly (unless I had set a previous precedent by acting the same with an overpair or top set) or bet out stubbornly, attempting to read/guess/pray that Mr. Rainbow Trout is going to lay down his 5 on the turn...or even the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not you reraise, there are going to be at least 11SBs in the pot on the flop before anyone puts a bet in. Even if you miss, you're not going to be able to check-fold this flop for one bet, so 3-betting doesn't enable you to get away from the hand more cheaply.

Anyway, if you check-call the flop, the reason you're doing this is because it's +EV to do this. Why would you complain about being forced into a situation with positive expectation?

[ QUOTE ]
By reraising preflop in the SB, you make yourself first to act on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

No, being in the SB makes you have to act first on the flop and there's nothing you can do to change this. I know what you mean, and you're right, it's going to be difficult to play well after the flop given that you are out of position. This is why you MUST take advantage of the fact that you have a pre-flop edge to exploit.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If UTG open raised with say AQ and was coldcalled by say a 99, What is his edge over those two players alone???

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it sucks to be AQ. And how is 99 gonna feel vs. a flop 3-bettor and all those callers when the flop comes Jack or Ten high and he didn't make a set? He's not gonna like it.

What about the fish in there with 65s and T9o? Do you want to be them or do you want to be AK?

[Ezcheeze]

"Why do so many posters on here have the approach of 'I have AK, CLEARLY I have the best hand, I am giving up too much equity if I don't 3 bet now.'"

The reason is because it is correct. Maybe some poeple are just regurgitating something they hear alot, but most have given it considerable thought and realize that 3-betting is right, so it shouldn't surprise you that so many poeple take this approach.

"Now on a favorable flop doesn't he gain a larger fraction of a bet for every bet put in after the flop???"

True...but what is your point? You think not 3-betting will gain you more postflop bets on a favorable flop then if you didn't 3-bet? Making the pot bigger will encourage them to put MORE bets in postflop when you get a good flop - Ironnically, this is the crux of the argument for NOT 3-betting since your opponents won't be making much of a mistake to chase in such a big pot. You seem to be confused as to the reasons for not 3-betting.

-Ezcheeze

[Andy B]

Clearly, you're not going to get anyone out. So freaking what? Despite what some people seem to think, AK is capable of winning a showdown against multiple opponents. You're not raising to get people out; you're raising to get more money in with what is presumed to be the best hand.

[Andy B]

[ QUOTE ]
....in a game where someone with as tight of an image as me comes in on a reraise, if my A or K hits, I get zero extra post-flop action unless I am beat.

[/ QUOTE ]
This strikes me as being somewhat ridiculous. I don't know you, but I know Nate, and I know a lot of the live ones in that game. I would say that Nate has a fairly tight image as far as things go. These guys call his raise with, say, AT because, well hell, it's AT, isn't it? When Nate bets that Ace-high flop, do they suddenly think, "ooh, Nate must have a better Ace; I should fold"? Hell no. They've hit their hand. Now it could be that your image is even tighter than Nate's, and when you three-bet out of the blind, that should sound alarms. Nonetheless, if these guys catch top pair along with you, you're going to get paid. And if you do manage to claim a $450 pot on the flop, is that a bad thing?

[Andy B]

I say three-bet.

1) Three-betting is fun.

2) Nate can be pushed around. Pushing people around is fun. Pushing Nate around is even funner. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

3) You have Ace-King, for crying out loud.

Calling is fine. You're out of position, I'd prefer a smaller field, it is deceptive (although the fact that you're calling for $40 should alert at least Nate that you have a little something. If you just call, you improve your position after the flop, assuming Nate bets. You might be able to check-raise the field, or you might be able to get away from it if you miss and it's bet and raised. On balance, though, I think the three-bet is the way to go.


I hope that if Nate happens to read this, he takes it in the fun-loving spirit in which it was intended, or at least he doesn't punch me out next time I see him.

[Andy B]

Another thing about three-betting is that if Nate has the temerity to come over the top of you, you should have a better idea of how to proceed after the flop. Given the small blind's alleged image, I don't think that Nate four-bets with AKs.