Go with my read/hunch or Play correct.

[B Dids]

I'm UTG + 1 with 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif. I limp- which is probably bad, given that this isn't .5/1 (the last time I played full games) and a lot of these low PP limps aren't correct anymore.

Folded to mp3, who calls, folded to the SB, who raises, BB folds, I call, mp3 calls.

Flop 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Sb bets, I raise, mp3 folds, sb calls.

Turn A /images/graemlins/club.gif

sb checks, I bet, sb raises, I 3-bet (questionable? He doesn't seem like the type to bet a flush draw on the flop, I'm thinking AK or somethign at this point). He caps (OK, well I guess he does have a flush, I scream "PAIR THE BOARD" and call). But here's the problem. I think I'm right, in that a flush isn't likely for him, so AA becomes a more likely holding.

River 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Yes, Christmas Time in my Pants!!

SB bets, I raise, he 3 bets, I cap.

Here's where I struggle. I think he's got AA. I think he's got me beat. However, what I've taught myself is to avoid playing these hunches and seeing monsters. I have a boat, he's played a lot like I have a flush, so I should cap? BUT- based on the few hands I've played with him, AA just seems a heck of a lot more likely.

At what point do you slow down here, if at all? When do you start listening to your hunches/reads. I tend to think I'm pretty good about making these types of reads, but in this case I pushed it aside because I felt like the "correct" play was to cap.

[Entity]

Dids,

I probably call the turn checkraise and call the river 3-bet unless I have a read on him as being pretty aggro. He's got AA one more way than he has a flush (flush seems possible with K/images/graemlins/club.gifQ/images/graemlins/club.gif and K/images/graemlins/club.gifJ/images/graemlins/club.gif), so his preflop raise tells me something.

Rob

[nothumb]

No reads?

The bet/call the flop, check/raise the turn is a default set line for the typical player as well as pretty likely if he has AA. I think you have to fear one of the hands that beat you here, probably just call the river 3-bet, unless you have a read that he overvalues his hands.

NT

[B Dids]

No reads? Did you like read the post?

My "hunch" is based on my read that he's very loose (around 50% VI$IP) but not terribly aggro post flop. Which I think probably adds to the reasons to slow down more than I did.

I'm not just asking about this specific hand btw- just that how many times do you let your reads (based on say 50 hands) cause you to make a play that you would other not make (I was tempted to fold the turn for instance).

[J.R.]

eveythign is fine up until the river 3-bet, which is where you perhaps should have slowed down. He can see the flush too, and other than KQs, KJs and KTs (assumning he is soemwhat reasonable- and these are very unlikely river 3-bets) you are beat. The turn could be a AxK /images/graemlins/club.gif type of thing, or one of the club hands mentioned, but think I slown dow to the river 3-bet.

If he is real neat and tidy you can call the river bet, but those guys are few and far between.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think I'm pretty good about making these types of reads, but in this case I pushed it aside because I felt like the "correct" play was to cap.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a terrible attitude. A lot of people have this false dichotomy between reads and odds or between intuition and logic. It's all one process. Logic is a machine for thinking about the game and observation is the raw material that the machine uses for fuel. Intuition is observation happening at a subconscious level.

You feel like you overplayed this hand because you did. I think the mistake you made is related to the either/or fallacy. Either he has AA or he doesn't. If he has AA it's "correct" to fold, if he doesn't it's "correct" to cap. So you feel like you should do one or the other.

But he doesn't either have AA or not, he sort of has it and doesn't at the same time. The job of intuition and observation is to give you the most accurate view of this hybrid possibility cluster (it looks like this (http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Esequin/GEOM/MATHmodels/KleinF8top.jpg)) then math tells you how to extract max value from it.

Getting out of the either/or trap is one of the first things you learn in poker. I know you this. As a long-term winner you obviously know how to think in terms of possibility clusters instead of binary oppositions. Maybe in stressful situations that skill breaks down. If so that's a leak you should fix. Maybe using this absorbent Borromean Tangle (http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sequin/SFF/Parts294-3/BorrTangle5.jpg), knot!

/mc

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
But he doesn't either have AA or not, he sort of has it and doesn't at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll see that idea and raise you a Schrodinger's Cat.

[captZEEbo1]

wouldn't he 3-bet the flop with AA? Maybe that's just me. Going for the turn c/r is risky, as the other raising could have had the flush draw + overs raise. Is my thinking he correct?

I cap river. If he has the flush he might put you on trip 9s because you raised the flop.

[Bascule]

[ QUOTE ]
But he doesn't either have AA or not, he sort of has it and doesn't at the same time. The job of intuition and observation is to give you the most accurate view of this hybrid possibility cluster (it looks like this (http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Esequin/GEOM/MATHmodels/KleinF8top.jpg)) then math tells you how to extract max value from it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like this analogy very much. Perhaps someone will develop an equation analagous to Schrödinger's, to express limit poker as an equation. We could then solve this equation to tell us which actions to take to maximise EV in all situations! Kewl.

There is another scientific concept that might be relevant here, developed IIRC by a biochemist, Lubert Stryer. He was considering that artefacts could be introduced into research data by the very act of collecting that data - i.e. the act of observing something changes that which is being observed. He called this "The price of peeking".

Combining the ideas gives this:

Facing a bet on the river, we can change our opponent's hand from a hybrid possibility cluster into one single hand, but only if we are prepared to pay the price of peeking.

Bascule