I finally got to 3bet 98s !!!

[DcifrThs]

there was a thread a while ago about putting in 3 or 4 bets pf voluntarily w/ a hand like j9s 7 or 8 ways.

so i tried it.

party 30/60 loose game. 3 limpers to me 1 fold and i call 9h8h guy to my left raises and it ended up 7 or 8 way action back to me. i 3bet figuring worst case if he caps then we'll get maybe 1 fold possibly 2 but who can resist this pot??

so he caps 1 person folds everybody else calls. a billion bets in the pot and long story short i win an insane pot w/ a flush on the river after a flop of KdQh3h went like 3 bets 5 ways...*downswing officially over*

my question and the reason for this post is that i would have and have always 100% simply called in that spot.

my understanding of implied odds is that you want to keep the ability to draw cheap so you can get paid in big bets later thus increasing your effective odds by counting the implied ones.

however, pot equity comes into play here b'c 98s is a hand that will win more than its fair share vs. 7 people putting in 4 bets so from a pot equity standpoint it looks like a good investment (its gotta be good more than 16.667% of the time right?)

therefore, the equity outweighs the implied odds concept...right?

thoughts?

-Barron

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
however, pot equity comes into play here b'c 98s is a hand that will win more than its fair share vs. 7 people putting in 4 bets so from a pot equity standpoint it looks like a good investment (its gotta be good more than 16.667% of the time right?)

therefore, the equity outweighs the implied odds concept...right?

thoughts?

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not quite that simple, because pot equity calculations are based on all hands at showdown, without regard to how much pressure you have to withstand throughout the hand.

The dynamic of having a lot of pressure put on with flop and turn raises is more directly related to implied odds. Having said that, you have a hand that plays very well in multiway pots, so I don't think it is much of a mistake at all to 3-bet it as you did.

[haakee]

Most of the hands he's going to win a showdown with are hands that he's going to get to the showdown here with 184050 bets in the pot before the flop. He's staying in with a 2-pair draw or a gutshot here in most scenarios.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, pot equity comes into play here b'c 98s is a hand that will win more than its fair share vs. 7 people putting in 4 bets so from a pot equity standpoint it looks like a good investment (its gotta be good more than 16.667% of the time right?)

therefore, the equity outweighs the implied odds concept...right?

thoughts?

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not quite that simple, because pot equity calculations are based on all hands at showdown, without regard to how much pressure you have to withstand throughout the hand.

The dynamic of having a lot of pressure put on with flop and turn raises is more directly related to implied odds. Having said that, you have a hand that plays very well in multiway pots, so I don't think it is much of a mistake at all to 3-bet it as you did.

[/ QUOTE ]


hmmm...well then it appears to be a combination of the two...but the thing is, every $ you put in the pot when its that many to a flop is profitable the times yo flop a big draw like i did, i it was bet and raised to me on the flop i cold called and the pf capper 3 bet and it was called back to me and i capped b/c i was NOW getting plenty of overlay.

also there's other flops that you have to continue on w/ that will cost dearly and you still lose.

im having a hard time understanding the calculation of taking into acct these two concepts, how they interelate and culminate in the determination of whether its 'correct' to 3bet like i did.

id love for ray or mason or david to chime in and relay their thoughts.

-Barron

[Danielih]

I like it. In higher limit games, in holdem as well as other games you need to raise and 3bet with wider ranges of hands to disguise what you have. Then take a hand in position with an equity edge, giddyup.

[jomatty]

interesting post. i almost never make plays like you describe and i fluctuate from thinking what im doing is standard to thinking it may be a leak of mine. while its not something i usually do in the heat of battle, its hard for me to think it could be wrong in the scenario you layed out (especially considering image considerations)
i imagine that regularly making these sorts of plays (as long as you only do so in situations like these) and never making them would make little difference but when you add image considerations into the equation(and the fact that theyre fun to make) and its prob something i should have in my arsenal.

[spamuell]

Well I've just spent some time searching the archives because I remember stuff about this a while ago.

There is a hand on p266 of Carson's Complete Book of Hold'em Poker where there is a player who has 97s on the button, 5 players limp to him, he limps, sb folds, BB raises and Carson says the play is to 3-bet.

According to Ed Miller (in Jan 2004):

[ QUOTE ]

Gary Carson is dead wrong about the 97s hand.

This limp-reraise is generally bad poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=498224&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

If it's not profitable from the button, I don't see it being profitable from the SB.

It looks like Ed is saying that in this situation, implied odds are more important than a small amount of positive pot equity you might have pre-flop.

[InfernoLL]

He wasn't in the small blind. Also, having an 8-9 way pot w/ 98s is considerably better than a 6 way pot w/ 97s. The difference I would imagine is very significant, and it might change from positive to negative expectation here.

[andyfox]

The three exclamation points baffle me a bit: I guess I don't understand the thrill of 3-betting the field with 9-high without the button.

Doesn't one have to consider not just how often 9h-8h will win the pot against 7/8 opponents, but also how much one will win or lose? I'd rather load the pot after I flop 7h-6c-2h than before I flop Ad-Qs-Ts.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
He wasn't in the small blind. Also, having an 8-9 way pot w/ 98s is considerably better than a 6 way pot w/ 97s. The difference I would imagine is very significant, and it might change from positive to negative expectation here.

[/ QUOTE ]

eds book was written about IDIOTS (they dont need a big pot inducement to stay to the end)!!! im playing 30/60 with people who have some standards and also i wouldn't raise 97s from the button either...but if i called and the sb raised the bb called and all called back to me id 3 bet it now.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
The three exclamation points baffle me a bit: I guess I don't understand the thrill of 3-betting the field with 9-high without the button.

Doesn't one have to consider not just how often 9h-8h will win the pot against 7/8 opponents, but also how much one will win or lose? I'd rather load the pot after I flop 7h-6c-2h than before I flop Ad-Qs-Ts.

[/ QUOTE ]

there was a post about this a month or so ago where it was live and the hero 3 bet or capped J8s with 8 or so people in the pot. i took your line andy and said its lowering your implied odds by paying more on earlier streets. but the thing is, these suited connecting hands do fantastic in large pots. i just can't "prove" what was talked about a month ago, or what i just did was right because nobody has brought up an argument that takes everything into consideration and explains how its right or wrong.

-Barron

[bobman0330]

I think this raise is good here. The important thing to consider is how your action will alter the way the hand plays postflop. As you've identified, 98s has a good equity edge over a field this big. By jamming the pot to this ridiculous extent (15 or something BBs in PF), you do two things:
1. You insure that you can stay to the river to collect your equity edge.
2. You insure that other people will pay you off when you want.

The key to this play (which would also be good with something like 55, i think), is that your postflop hand value is largely bimodal. Contrast your situation to that of AKo, which probably has a high hot and cold equity. if the flop comes bad for AK, he will still have to call trying to spike a pair because the pot is so large. A lot of AK's equity is tied up in these marginal situations. By contrast, 98s and 55 will either hit or miss badly (unless you catch one pair or a gutshot... these probably count as hitting here). So, while one-pair type hands like AK are having to call many bets to chase this lovely pot you've built, you can fold on the monotone AKJ flop that blows your hand to smithereens. When you flop good, you can jam and get callers, and when you flop a draw, you can call (or raise good draws, as the pot will be very multiway) with contentment. When you miss, you're done with the hand.

Implied odds should only be a factor when you don't have present equity to make your hand profitable. The idea behind implied odds is to spend a lot of money now in the hope of being payed off when you hit. But here, you aren't spending much, if at all, and you'll still get payed off if you do hit, due to the size of the pot. It's no contest.

Note: DS/MM discuss these concepts throughout the preflop chapter of HE4AP.

[SmileyEH]

This is just a gut feeling, but I doubt the EV difference between calling or 3betting is more than a tiny fraction of a SB. So if I was feeling like gambooling I'd 3bet, otherwise just call. Might as well do it for the Shania, and the good times that inevitably follow, when you flop your 40% equity draw and see everybody hang around for multiple bets to the river.

-SmileyEH

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just a gut feeling, but I doubt the EV difference between calling or 3betting is more than a tiny fraction of a SB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran a bunch of showdown equity simulations this morning and (as expected) this had ranges from a big dog to a slight favorite depending on the hands you're up against.

I wouldn't 3-bet if you feel that a big pair is in the mix. Even if the other hand are terrible it tough to make up all the equity that the big hand has.
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1036999

If you suspect AK and suspect a few of the other hands are way below average then go for it.
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1037006

[bobman0330]

7-handed, not 5-handed... very important. Add KQ and TT to your AA mix, and hero is about 16% = break even

[brick]

I read "5 ways" but I see that was the flop action. my bad.

But the main point is relevant, "It depends."

[DcifrThs]

in your worst case scenario 98s has an EV of .169

im getting 6:1 (w/ 7 people in).the ev of teh hand is thus greater than the odds im getting on the win (.142) on that range of hands.

now twodimes is really simplistic and theres more out there like shared redraw high card flushes/ straight cards gone etc...but all in all looking at that highly simplistic simuation it looks like i should DEFINATELY raise.

-Barron

[brick]

Those sims were 5 way. Sorry for the mistake.

Here's one 7 way with AA. (no one holds 8 or 9)
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1037051

I know it's totally simplistic but you can see that the range of hands you're up against does matter.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Those sims were 5 way. Sorry for the mistake.

Here's one 7 way with AA. (no one holds 8 or 9)
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1037051

I know it's totally simplistic but you can see that the range of hands you're up against does matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

i changed one of the aces in the AA to As. ev fell to .132, so in terms of equity the mistake is about an 8% mistake. but i think thats just about the worst case scenario.

-Barron

[Nigel]

Again, don't forget that these twodimes equity evaluations include all the runner runner hands that win the pot for you that you would never be around to see after you sensibly fold a flop that misses you.

Not that I'm against raising these hands, just something to keep in mind.

Nigel

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
i think thats just about the worst case scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
The worst case scenario is when the most hands are 4-way, then one hand is 8-way. You're usually up against a big pair and other players often hold suited connectors that have you dominated.
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1037203

Be content to play them for two bets and get creative like nate does (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=1730581&Foru m=All_Forums&Words=suited&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Ma in=1730581&Search=true&where=sub&Name=4664&dateran ge=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&b odyprev=#Post1730581).

[Danielih]

I made a mistake. I did not realize it was a limpreraise. I like the spot when 5 people limp in the CO raises and you 3bet on the button or something like that.

Regardless limp reraising is mandatory if you are going to be limping. Abdul has written about this in the past. If you want to limp I think you need to limpreraise with some pairs and suited connectors to throw people off. When other people have a harder time reading your hand it leads them to play suboptimally against you and you gain. It all comes down to Sklanskys fundamental theorum of poker.

For example in the 200400 holdem game at the RIO last night Player x keeps limping in with shitty hands so Player y (Both are considered to be some of the best young all around players) kept raising him and he never once limp reraised.

In that game I think limping at all was wrong but if you are going to do it then you have to limpreraise.

I am not a holdem expert but at the higher levels you have to make plays which hover around neutral EV simply to mix up your play. Tight straightforward play will not work against expert players. Then again you could still win through 400800 with careful game selection.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I made a mistake. I did not realize it was a limpreraise. I like the spot when 5 people limp in the CO raises and you 3bet on the button or something like that.

Regardless limp reraising is mandatory if you are going to be limping. Abdul has written about this in the past. If you want to limp I think you need to limpreraise with some pairs and suited connectors to throw people off. When other people have a harder time reading your hand it leads them to play suboptimally against you and you gain. It all comes down to Sklanskys fundamental theorum of poker.

For example in the 200400 holdem game at the RIO last night Player x keeps limping in with shitty hands so Player y (Both are considered to be some of the best young all around players) kept raising him and he never once limp reraised.

In that game I think limping at all was wrong but if you are going to do it then you have to limpreraise.

I am not a holdem expert but at the higher levels you have to make plays which hover around neutral EV simply to mix up your play. Tight straightforward play will not work against expert players. Then again you could still win through 400800 with careful game selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

the only problem i see with this is that you say it is necessary to mix it up vs. experts.

but then you say to only lrr to throw them off w/ suited connectors and pairs. basically drawing hands that can make big hands and big draws vs. a large field.

im no expert but when i see somebody lrr like i did in a pot like that i immediately assume small pairs maybe up to TT or a suited and likely connected hand. since you'd NEVER limpRR AA and big cards, or suited cards like AQs or excellent high cards (AQ/AK) its pretty safe to assume you dont have those cards in your hand. so if its a As9h3h flop and i didn't put in the last bet w/ JJ i can now use this information. i KNOW you'll check here when you miss or bet when you are drawing for ev purposes so i can BET that JJ out b/c hands liek KQ or QQ/KK may fold having to deal with your limp reraise after many players (and i hope they dont know what i know about your lrr standards) and the cap from the player behind you (which is a prerequisite to this example hand as noted previously). so even though they want to try to hit their sets, they will now be more likely to fold and i can charge you w/ fewer opponents and maybe just call the flop if you raise and reevaluate on the turn.

anyways, this is one simplistic example, but imo the mixiting up value of this LR is not nearly as strong an argument for either side as the equity vs. implied odds arguments.

-Barron

PS- i hope i got that right and am explaining it well b/c i dont feel like editing this right now.

[Nigel]

Well, you need to LRR AA etc. if you are going to LRR the other crap, otherwise the whole deception thing goes out the window.

Nigel

[Danielih]

See when I play I dont really limp. So whenever I limp I am essentially mixing up my play and people dont know what I have. Then I will limp reraise depending on the number of players , action, position yadda yadda.

The thing is If I am adopting a holdem strategy that involved a fair amount of limping then I will mix in limp reraising and if I mix in limp reraising then I will do it with AA and AQs.

I believe the counter argument is that when you limp with AA and it does not get raised behind you then you are giving up way too much EV. Well I think it all balances out and people see you limp with AA, then know you can limp reraise with it, you know you can limp reraise with any hand that you are going to play here because almost any hand you are holding is going to have an equity edge over the field.

Whether or not this is worthless rambling or not I dont know. What I can tell you for sure is that in higher limit games some people play fairly well and tight and aggresive but their hands are too easy to read. This doesnt just apply to holdem but omaha8 2-7 and other games as well. When they enter a pot and play a certain way I can put them on such a narrow range of hands they can almost never valuebet against me because I know what they have. It is also coupled with too low a bluffing frequency. Complex bluffing. Not just betting the river in a big pot when you miss. Because if your opponent is good they will know this and they will often raise or CR bluff the river on you. It depends on what level people are thinking on.

Also I think your example is far too simplistic. Trust me when I say you have no clue what kind of hand I might be holding and how I am going to play it after the flop. If the flop comes As 9h 3h and I have 8s9s I may cap it. But I might also cap it with AA and AK and 33 and 99 and KKh and QhJh JhTh and the like.

Sorry this isnt structured well nor is it much of an argument. But I can say almost certainly than an argument of pushing an equity edge preflop vs. hurting your implied odds later on is kind of silly. Situations are far too complex to be able to evaluate the merit of one vs. the other. How have all of the previous hands at the table affected how this hand is going to play out. How will your play on this given hand affect the play at the table for future hands. How will it affect how your opponents play against you in future sessions.

Also given the range of hands with which I will limp reraise with (large if I am employing this strategy) I believe the percentage of flops for which I carry on very aggresively is fairly high. So you will not easily be able to define my hand. If the flop comes A83 rainbow I may jam the flop with 56s and the next time I have 88 how are you gonna play against me. I am a maniac. You either have to put in a lot of bets and win or lose, miss a lot of bets when you do win, or fold.

Once again this is just my opinion. And I am not sure if what I am about to say is contradicted in my earlier statememts but I am not a fan of limping. After 3 limpers what are you limping with, suited connected, Axs , small to medium pairs?

Really it all depends on the game. LRR with 89s at that time could be very positive EV at the time in the game you were in. In a different game with the same situation it might be much closer to neutral EV. Poker is about your opponents, The best strategy depends on your opponents strategy and how they will react to you and how you will react to them.

Then again this is all just my opinion Im typing out without rereading.

I think the answer is, it depends.

[chief444]

FWIW, I don't really think it makes too much of a difference if you're preflop equity is slightly positive.

The implied odds are usually related to the amount you are paying to see the next round mainly those times where the immediate odds don't alone justify the price. That is, if you have a small pocket pair or whatever hand that may have X% of pot equity and you pay Y BB's to see the flop if your equity is less than you're fair share you can often justify a call by assuming implied odds of something like 10 times Y or more. But if you're X% of equity is slightly positive you're not really counting on implied odds. Obviously you're not running hot and cold simulations here so being slightly positive with preflop equity in a simulation probably means the raise is really about nuetral since you will very occasionally fold an eventual winner that would have caught a runner runner of some sort. So that's why I'm saying it probably doesn't really matter. Obviously with an increased pot size the implied odds are increased since people are tied to the flop with any piece but that works both for and against you since you want people tied to the flop when drawing to very strong hands but you will also be tied to the flop with some very weak draws at times.

So basically yes, I agree with what you're saying...that the equity outweighs the implied odds. But I'd want that equity to be a little better than neutral since, as I said it's not a simulation where you're always seeing the river (although not far from it with this pot).

Personally, I don't really like the play here to be honest. For one thing you're playing 30/60 so I'm assuming for the most part people are limping with reasonable hands compared to lower levels and that decreases your own equity slightly. Also, in this case it actually gives you're hand away somewhat, IMO, since there really isn't much you're limp/reraising with from this position other than a good multiway hand. So I think anyone arguing it's deceptive (I didn't read any responses yet but I'm assuming it's been mentioned) actually has it backwards. But the biggest thing I dislike about it is that you're sitting with some loose opponents who you generally outplay postflop. A huge pot makes their otherwise too loose postflop play correct so in that sense you're really handicapping yourself so to speak.

Chief

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless limp reraising is mandatory if you are going to be limping. Abdul has written about this in the past. If you want to limp I think you need to limpreraise with some pairs and suited connectors to throw people off.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing a significant point here. This wasn't a limp/reraise. It was an overlimp/reraise. Abdul's stuff applies when you're the first one to enter a pot.

[Danielih]

aye you are right.