First Things First, flop decision

[HiatusOver]

38/16/1.30 opens for a raise in the Hi-Jack, I 3-bet 88 in the SB.

Flop Q42 with 2 club. I bet 3-bet the flop. Standard?

[DeeJ]

i hate the snowmen

I would check-raise the flop here with only one overcard, since it's almost certain he'll bet. If he doesn't, you may be able to take him down on the turn as a turn bet can have a reasonable chance of taking it down even if he called a check-raise representing a Q. Any reraising and I'm out.

[Paluka]

I think your line is pretty standard, and probably the best one most of the time.

[catlover]

Certainly not standard. This is one of those situations where you have to mix it up. Your play is reasonable to take some of the time. But realize you have gone out on a limb with aggression here.

I think it's reasonable to sometimes fold when he raises your flop bet. And sometimes call, and sometimes raise like you did.

Assuming you 3 bet the flop and bet the turn. If rags come, do you bet the river? My guess is that this player will be betting the river with hands that beat you, so it is probably best to bet. Do you guys think that the villian will be checking better hands on the river?

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you 3 bet the flop and bet the turn. If rags come, do you bet the river?

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, u pretty much have to.
i like this just fine BTW...

[HiatusOver]

OK so noone hates the flop...

Turn comes another Q.

I bet, opponent raises. Now I know the default play is to lay it down, but I cant help to think that he thinks that I think he has a queen and is trying to re-represent it with this card. Is it worth a few more big bets to see a showdown here?

[etizzle]

i'm deeeefinitely seeing a showdown here. He could certianly have A4, 22-77, etc.

Can someone please explain to me what the advantage is of 3-betting rather than calling down when you're OOP?

Assuming AA-99 and any Q aren't folding no matter what you do, then the only hands that you want out that might fold to the 3-bet and turn bet-out are AJ-A9 and maybe AK. The 3-bet also gives you the initiative when you don't want it if you're up against a big hand (i.e., it's going to get you raised on the turn or, worse yet, the river), plus, if he's bluffing or semi-bluffing then the 3-bet lets him get away from the hand cheaply.

So when you're OOP with a weakish and vulnerable hand facing aggression shouldn't the default be to call down and probably fold if an A or K hits?

Also, doesn't the fact that you're almost always calling down in these situations negate much (not all, but much) of the exploitability that might otherwise result from such a passive approach?

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone please explain to me what the advantage is of 3-betting rather than calling down when you're OOP?


[/ QUOTE ]

The advantage is that when you are winning, you not only get an extra bet in on the flop, but also prevent him from checking behind on the turn by keeping the pressure on.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
OK so noone hates the flop...

Turn comes another Q.

I bet, opponent raises. Now I know the default play is to lay it down, but I cant help to think that he thinks that I think he has a queen and is trying to re-represent it with this card. Is it worth a few more big bets to see a showdown here?

[/ QUOTE ]

the flop line is standard for me and i like it. basically what paluka said,

however i think you should go with your reads regarding the turn. if you think he thinks you think he has a queen (no joke there) then i would go to the showdown.

poker's about everything but the cards

http://www.blackgayblogger.com/images/paulivey3.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
I think your line is pretty standard, and probably the best one most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

would the same apply if the board was rainbow?

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage is that when you are winning, you not only get an extra bet in on the flop, but also prevent him from checking behind on the turn by keeping the pressure on.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what hands that hero's beating will call a flop 3 bet and turn bet? Not many, I think. The flop 3-bet probably saves someone on a bluff or overplayed 2d or 3d pair 1.5 BBs.

Also, I forgot to mention that 3-bettingthe flop (which will almost surely be called), increases the size of the pot, which makes it less of a mistake for an opponent to call with overs.

I'm thinking more and more that the passive approach is far superior in these situations and that 3-betting is a pretty big mistake most of the time. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand why so many around here think the flop 3-bet is the way to go.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
But what hands that hero's beating will call a flop 3 bet and turn bet? Not many, I think. The flop 3-bet probably saves someone on a bluff or overplayed 2d or 3d pair 1.5 BBs.

Also, I forgot to mention that 3-bettingthe flop (which will almost surely be called), increases the size of the pot, which makes it less of a mistake for an opponent to call with overs.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are really looking at things the wrong way here and some of your points contradict one another. First you say he can't have a hand we are beating that will call our 3 bet and turn bet. Then you say we are makign the pot bigger which makes him better off calling with overs. Are you trying to say if you knew he had overcards you would just call /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I'm just starting to really understand and appreciate the dynamics of position and I think this is one of the textbook situations where position makes a big difference in how to play a hand.

So, what I'm trying to do is evaluate the outcomes given all possible holdings of the opponent:

1. If he's ahead, then 3-betting is obviously bad because villain ain't folding and hero's losing more.

2. If hero's ahead, then either (a) the flop 3 bet will allow villain to get away from the hand when hero'd probably prefer for him to keep putting money in the pot, or (b) for that narrow range of hands that we're ahead of but that we'd like to fold out (2 overcards), the flop 3 bet inflates the pot and makes a call by villain either correct or at least less of a mistake -- as compared, e.g., to calling the flop and donking the turn (and folding to a raise).

I think this approach applies to most situations where hero might already be behind and is OOP. Probably applies even more in a case like this where he's facing reverse implied odds.

But I could be way off here.

[dave44]

[ QUOTE ]
(b) for that narrow range of hands that we're ahead of but that we'd like to fold out (2 overcards), the flop 3 bet inflates the pot and makes a call by villain either correct or at least less of a mistake -- as compared, e.g., to calling the flop and donking the turn (and folding to a raise).

[/ QUOTE ]
Since donking the turn is really only something you would do with a hand that isn't strong enough to 3-bet the flop, I'm not sure you don't get raised off the best hand often enough to counteract any benefits from playing it that way. Also, after you 3-bet the flop and bet the turn, it seems unlikely he's calling with overcard hands anyway so having the pot be a bit larger shouldn't be a huge factor.

Despite this, I do worry we make it too easy for him to get away from hands that are worse than ours. Are other people often taking this line with a hand that'd be behind villain if he had something like 55 here to give him a reason to call down?

[ QUOTE ]
I bet, opponent raises. Now I know the default play is to lay it down, but I cant help to think that he thinks that I think he has a queen and is trying to re-represent it with this card. Is it worth a few more big bets to see a showdown here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know your history or the texture of this game, but that seems like a very difficult read to make here. Has he made bluff-rebluffs like this before? Have you folded a similar situation before? He may be semibluffing with Ax clubs, does he like to semibluff the turn alot? What do you do if an ace or club hits the river? Is there any non-8 river you can bet?

It may be worth the 2 more bets for showdown, but I would not commit to it with only the pokertracker X/Y/Z stats given in your original post. There's no law that loose-agg players can't hit trips (or a full house), and you've shown major strength on every street only to run into more resistance.

Good luck,
IronFly

[PokerBob]

sure

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone please explain to me what the advantage is of 3-betting rather than calling down when you're OOP?



[/ QUOTE ]

i'll try. when we call the flop raise, there are over 10 SB's in the pot. assuming we have the best hand, we cannot afford to give him a "free" look at the turn by just calling, which could very well lead to a turn check and thus a free river. If villain has 6 outs to beat us, this would really suck. Now, if villain is a tricky [censored] and will raise the turn with a hand like AK, then we may have rethink our flop play.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]

1. If he's ahead, then 3-betting is obviously bad because villain ain't folding and hero's losing more.

2. If hero's ahead, then either (a) the flop 3 bet will allow villain to get away from the hand when hero'd probably prefer for him to keep putting money in the pot, or (b) for that narrow range of hands that we're ahead of but that we'd like to fold out (2 overcards), the flop 3 bet inflates the pot and makes a call by villain either correct or at least less of a mistake -- as compared, e.g., to calling the flop and donking the turn (and folding to a raise).



[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with #1, but #2 I have trouble with. We are indeed inflating the pot, thus minimizing villain's mistakes by calling with overs, but we are causing him to make a mistake nonetheless, thus our 3bet is for value. Our 3 bet also may get villain to dump a hand like 99-JJ (although i concede that this is unlikely). Finally from a meta standpoint, it may get villain to think again about getting frisky with our blind.

In this situation put on the brakes after the flop. A check-raise would have been a good choice here.