middle pair, very aggresive

[theBruiser500]

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 4 handed)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. UTG posts a blind of $5.
<font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB folds, BB folds, UTG (poster) calls.

Flop: (4.40 SB) K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls.

Turn: (3.20 BB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">UTG caps</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 10.20 BB

When he checkraised me thought he might be putting a play on me with that board, maybe I should have jsut called him down then? When he caps I don't see how I'm not beaten.

[jgorham]

I think you call down his checkraise for 2 reasons. First you are hoping he is bluffing, or at least overplaying a pair below 6's. Now if this is the case he will probably fold to a 3bet, whereas will fire again on the river if you just call netting you one extra bet.

Reason 2 is much less important, but this person just sat down at the table and you would like to get a chance to see what he is checkraising you with, even if you are behind.

[Nate tha' Great]

I don't see what purpose the 3-bet on the turn serves. Calling down costs you the same as 3-bet/folding, and that way you're guaranteed the chance to see a showdown and possibly spike a 2-outer.

[applej25]

beat me to it Nate /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[theBruiser500]

Let me see how much that 2 outer is worth... 3 BB on the turn, then 4 more with your advice on the turn plus I'll get at least 2 bets from him on the river so 9 BB 22:1 or 1/20 times so very roughly I think that comes out to 1/3 to 1/2 a BB, a not insignificant amount.

[theBruiser500]

I guess I never really considered a 2 outers worth in NL because when someone bets into me their bet is too big for me to think "i'm probably beat but i have outs."

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see how much that 2 outer is worth... 3 BB on the turn, then 4 more with your advice on the turn plus I'll get at least 2 bets from him on the river so 9 BB 22:1 or 1/20 times so very roughly I think that comes out to 1/3 to 1/2 a BB, a not insignificant amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got the math just right. Giving up on that 2-outer costs you more than you might think, especially when there's otherwise relatively little difference between calling down and 3-bet/folding.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I never really considered a 2 outers worth in NL because when someone bets into me their bet is too big for me to think "i'm probably beat but i have outs."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was going to say something similar. Having a general strategy of seeing a lot of cards/showdowns cheaply is pretty viable against aggressive limit opponents like the ones you'll see in the 6-max games.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what purpose the 3-bet on the turn serves. Calling down costs you the same as 3-bet/folding, and that way you're guaranteed the chance to see a showdown and possibly spike a 2-outer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if UTG is making a play thinking you're unlikely to have paired then he is very likely to have six outs to beat you which fold to the three-bet. I'd much rather UTG routinely folded a six-outer than that I sometimes ended up folding a two-outer.

No?

[jgorham]

Even if he does have 6 outs (it might be 3), I would rather take the 12% chance that he hits and take the extra bet off him - and thats the times we both miss. If you are behind then the 2 outs only help you.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what purpose the 3-bet on the turn serves. Calling down costs you the same as 3-bet/folding, and that way you're guaranteed the chance to see a showdown and possibly spike a 2-outer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if UTG is making a play thinking you're unlikely to have paired then he is very likely to have six outs to beat you which fold to the three-bet. I'd much rather UTG routinely folded a six-outer than that I sometimes ended up folding a two-outer.

No?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since UTG will usually bet a missed 6-outer on the river, you're effectively charging him for drawing by inducing a bluff on the end. The benefit of collecting this extra bet should roughly match the the equity that you lose from allowing him to draw out on you 6/46 of the time.

[theBruiser500]

Let's see, 6 outs for a 8 BB pot (3 on turn, 4 bets, and one on river when I call) in exchange for 1 bet he gives to me when he bluffs. Well it's 7:1 to hit 6 outer, and he's playing for an 8 BB pot so that's good for him. That's if he always has 6 outs though, some of the time he'll have 3 outs and soem of the time he'll have a king and the math I did back there shows that I get about 1/2 a BB when by just calling his KK. Plus I'll also have spent that extra 3rd bet raising the turn with an inferior hand but on the other hand, if I just call I'm calling a river bet so it's 3 bets anyway... It seems pretty close to me, but I'm not sure my logic is correct here. Anyone see if I'm missing something?

[Nate tha' Great]

6/46 of an 8 BB pot is 1.04 BB, but you get 1 BB of that back assuming that he bluffs into you on the river. So, yes, technically you'd prefer him to fold and not see a river card, but the difference only amounts to 0.04 BB.

[theBruiser500]

Thanks, that's a much clearer way of saying it! Plus that doesn't take into account the times he does have a king in which it's definitly better if I just call.

[Nemesis]

This is an excellent thread it goes in my thread for newbies. Any time i pick up something so widely applicable as this I bookmark it.

[Trix]

unless I think he may cap bluff or bet out on a riverblank about the right amount of time, then I 3bet and fold to the cap.
Even more so if he sometimes will give up on the river when you call the CR.

[theBruiser500]

Trix, there is a lot of analysis above about why your line is inferior, please refute it if you think 3 betting is the best way to go.

[aflaba]

I agree with everything if I can assume that my opponent will bluff me every time on the river. Is that a correct assumption though...? I don't know. If not then so far I disagree that calling must be the best option. This is probably because there is something I don't understand /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

You have him beat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Assume your oppoenent has overcards to your pair of sixes 90% of the time... we round that of to 100%. If you call the turn raise he gains 1 BB in pot equity compared to if you would have raised and he would have folded. Every time.

Taking only this into consideration:
+1BB for raising per occurance


*If you call him down you induce a bet on the river. But seing that you called his 3-bet, is it sure that he will come out bluffing every time? Maybe it is more probable he will only bluff the river 50% of the time)? If so...

Taking only this into consideration:
+0.5 BB for calling per occurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are beat:
You have either 0 outs or 2 outs.

When you have 0 outs both calling and raising is equal.

When you have 2 outs and call down: If we assume he bluffs the river 50% of the time this two-outer is worth 1/23*6.5 = 0.3BB per time you have it. But how often do you have this 2-outer? I don't think you have it a lot of times... More frequently I think he is on a K or a flush-draw than on 22, 33 or 77+(which he would also probably reraise preflop?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he is on a flush draw:

Lets assume he has one overcard and a flush draw in mean. That is 3+9=12outs. 12/46=.25.

*If you call him down. You pay him off on the river 25% of times. If he bluffs 50% of the times he misses, then he bluffs you 35%+ of the times he has a flush draw.
So per flush draw you win -1*.25+1*.35= 0.10 BB

*If you 3-bet. You make him pay 1 BB more per draw. he has 12 outs so he loses 1-2*0.25 = 0.5 BB. Also he will not bluff you on the river if he misses his flush draw since you showed such great streangth 3-betting.

=This means by three-betting you win 0.5-0.1= 0.4 BB more per time he is on a flush draw compared to calling him down.

Taking all of this in regard, if my estimatians are even close to being close to correct, I think that 3-betting is better than calling down.

This is if you don't consider the turn cap bluff. I've seen players cap semi-bluff the turn sometimes with flushdraw. Every time this happens it costs you 8*.8 = 6.5 BB. Maybe this danger outwights the pros of 3-betting, maybe not?

Disclaimer: I think I should have thought this post over more before I posted it but I'm really tired so I'll just hope everything is correct...

Have I taken everything into consideration? Anything else wrong? I just don't see how calling down is clearly better than 3-betting. Is it?

[aflaba]

Hey come on people. What am I missing here? Is it to obvious to comment on? ... Well even if it is, please comment.

Edit: The reply btw is not supposed to be to the post Trix made, but to theBruiser500's reply to his post.