Barron's Article.

[BarronVangorToth]

Much as you cringe when you hear weak-tight, I do when I hear "chase" as a negative...

Repeat after me: chasing your hand isn't a bad thing IF you have the odds to do so.

AK isn't a "made hand" -- you need to hit the board (usually) in order to win.

And "made hands" like AA sometimes need to do likewise in order to win.

It's all about the odds and equity and texture and everything else ... and chasing isn't bad, in and of itself.

So, to "compulsively chase" -- close, if you add to it: "compulsively chase when it is correct to do so."

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[BeerMoney]

Stellar, do you think an advantage to calling would be letting the blinds in cheaper?

[kidcolin]

I think the real advantage to just calling is you aren't opening yourself up to a cap from a guy who only plays premiums up front.

Barron, I still see you dodge the initial cold caller when giving your dead money theory on your 3-bet. Your read on the table gives you the knowledge that two players likely each have hands in the AA-TT, AK-AQ range. With this knowledge, you're pretty much praying for two pair or a strong draw. You're on very shaky ground if you hit top pair with what is predominantly a top pair hand. That's never a good position.

I've still yet to see you give a solid argument for the 3-bet other than citing SSHE, and saying you only did it because of the weak cold callers. Forget about what happened post-flop. Against this lineup, two strong players with strong hands and 3-weak cold callers, what do you think the advantage of 3-betting is? What do you percieve to be the value in it? What might be the disadvantages?

Spell these things out. Put a little more weight into your arguments. Don't just say "I believe the 3-bet is +EV". Back it up a little more.

[BarronVangorToth]

1. I'd rather further punish the cold-callers for cold-calling by getting more money out of them, whether another SB from me OR via a BB if the 1st guy caps (which he did).

2. Control the hand - you have a different control when you three-bet and then call a cap vs. calling a raise. If people miss, even if one of the early ones has AK / AQ, I will have the worse hand, but I will get him to fold.

There is a common misconception among poker players when thinking about hands in terms of odds, which often justifies them calling from the BB with a meager holding because they know (from TV, oftentimes) that they are getting "the right price on their money."

While if you have 90 in tourney chips and the BB is 50 and someone raises to 90 you are getting the odds, it is an entirely different scenario in limit hold 'em when you have to call a bet on the flop, turn, and river "chasing" what may (or may not be) the best hand.

That's a whole other scenario that is leading towards that aforementioned point that I would rather control the tempo and give the impression of something else so that I get all sorts of opportunities to further make other moves on the hand.

Given the range of hands, it's about even money calling vs. three-betting and calling a cap ... but the latter affords me greater opportunities than the former, IF you're confident of being able to play post-flop correctly on wholly different boards and situations.

A 2+2'er at Foxwoods the other day was talking to me about these very threads and this very article and thought that part of it has to do with table image and gaining extra value from other plays - while that is a side benefit, I would say that even if I thought I would never play with these people again, I would've done the same thing I did.

Obviously: that's gravy, but that's not part of it, despite what some may think.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

Some decent points, and I like this reasoning much more than the articles, which was ripe with results oriented thinking. But I really don't like the following:


[ QUOTE ]
Control the hand - you have a different control when you three-bet and then call a cap vs. calling a raise. If people miss, even if one of the early ones has AK / AQ, I will have the worse hand, but I will get him to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. a lot of people are in the hand, so it's very unlikely the board misses anyone.
2. There's a strong chance that 1 or 2 players has big pairs.
3. Any board that hits you likely nailed the first two players hand ranges. You could be in trouble.
4. Even if it does miss both those early players (say AK and AQ and a raggedy flop), the pot is now huge, so they're probably seeing the turn. You'll have to invest multiple bets if you think you can push them off of a hand.. not to mention the 3 other weak players who are less likely to fold give the pot size.


[ QUOTE ]
That's a whole other scenario that is leading towards that aforementioned point that I would rather control the tempo and give the impression of something else so that I get all sorts of opportunities to further make other moves on the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This point seems marginal at best. I guess it depends on the 3 weak players. Even if you can represent something to knock out the two premium hands (which is a somewhat scary thought in a big pot, as I mentioned above), are you going to be able to push the weak players off a middle pair or top pair?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
1. a lot of people are in the hand, so it's very unlikely the board misses anyone.
2. There's a strong chance that 1 or 2 players has big pairs.
3. Any board that hits you likely nailed the first two players hand ranges. You could be in trouble.
4. Even if it does miss both those early players (say AK and AQ and a raggedy flop), the pot is now huge, so they're probably seeing the turn. You'll have to invest multiple bets if you think you can push them off of a hand.. not to mention the 3 other weak players who are less likely to fold give the pot size.


[/ QUOTE ]


1. I'm not pointing this out to be anally obnoxious about language / typos, but I'm assuming in point 1 you meant to write "everyone" and not "anyone" - as while it is unlikely to miss EVERYONE, there is still a chance that it will ... and that the people it does connect with won't connect well enough to call down three streets, seeing as how they saw me 3-bet pre-flop and for all they know I have a big pair. Remember: this isn't online, this is a live Foxwoods game, and while people will call the flop and sometimes the turn, my take of the land in this situation is that if one of them hit a mid-pair they wouldn't call through the river.

2. I don't agree, as it's always more likely for overcards rather than an overpair - even if the pre-flop cap would indicate otherwise; I didn't know about the cap UNTIL I 3-bet, which further let me know what type of hand he had ... if I had simply called the raise, the range would be FAR greater and my decisions far less focused on the variety of boards that could come.

Getting the information (via the cap) helps define his hand, and immediately lets me know that I will be in trouble with him - and will need to hit something hard.

3. I agree; but if I didn't 3-bet, I wouldn't know this, as I got the cap which indicated said strength. Folding is obviously out of the question pre-flop and 3-betting builds the pot, collects more dead money, allows me options, gives me a stronger hand in their minds then they might imagine, plus lets me see him cap. I know almost exactly what he has; he has no clue now what I have ... and all the people are throwing in even more dead money in the middle.

4. Playing live you can get a good sense of people and how they are looking at the hand ... oftentimes you'll be able to buy pots more often than you'd imagine at these particular limits where players aren't as sophisticated as their online counterparts at the same level and won't want to call down 2.5 Big Bets with some random bottom pair IF that is the situation at hand.

With the multiverse of flops that could come out ... the more I've thought about it, discussed it, and analyzed it, I think it's clear why the lesson is in SSH to begin with and why it was 100% applicable to this situation: it's the right move to 3 bet here.

Not only in this situation (results-oriented thinking ahoy!) but in the near infinite other scenarios that on can contrive. Sure, you'll sometimes lose, and you'll sometimes win, but it's the +EV move for the above reasons, the reasons I stated in my article, and others, when you think in those terms.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[MaxPower]

Barron,

You are right that you should 3-bet pre-flop due to your pot equity. Even if you are dominated by the raiser.

But the last sentence of your article is very misleading. It implies that the purpose of the pre-flop raise is to make the pot big enough for you to draw post-flop.

The real reason for the pre-flop raise is your pre-flop equity. The real benefit of increasing the pot size is that when you do flop a big hand, you increase the likelihood that your oppoents will chase you with a hand that is drawing dead.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

But the last sentence of your article is very misleading. It implies that the purpose of the pre-flop raise is to make the pot big enough for you to draw post-flop.


[/ QUOTE ]


Very true. In hindsight, I would clean this point up as I did not mean to have that as the implication, but rather as a side benefit of the correct course of action, specifically giving me the odds in this situation.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

That's the problem. Keep in mind, you aren't just worried about the original raiser. He also puts the first cold-caller on a premium hand. He is potentially dominated twice.

I can't find the post, but StellarWind posted some PokerStove simulation results based on hand ranges for the two strong players and the 3-weak cold callers. He was even pretty liberal with the ranges, and KQs had about break even equity, if that, if I recall correctly. There really isn't any preflop edge to push.

Even if there were some preflop edge to push, his article is still geared towards how 3-betting and getting capped gave him correct odds to draw to a gutshot post flop. He made, IMO, a preflop mistake (though not a large one) that resulted in favorable post-flop conditions to drawing. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

There really isn't any preflop edge to push.


[/ QUOTE ]


If the mathematics work out equally, you are always best off raising as you give yourself the opportunity to make better hands fold.

This isn't NL where we are all going all-in and then let's see what wins ... this will have three streets of betting.

It's a big difference.



Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com