30/60 Canterbury hand

[bicyclekick]

Real good 30/60 game at the track last night.

Pretty good player (nathaniel) who plays a little loose, but not too overaggressive or retarded or anything and I'm almost sure is a winning 30/60 player opens in mp and gets cold called by 3 fish.

You have AKo in the sb, what's your move and why? If you think it matters, the BB is me (so a decent player in the BB).

[Joe Tall]

You 3-bet and get all the overlay from the clowns while knocking a player out who doesn't know the value of AK. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Chris Daddy Cool]

maybe i'm just a lowly small stakes player, but this seems like a ridiculously easy 3-bet to me.

[bicyclekick]

The player in the SB was a really solid player who is a real substantial winner and we got into a really heated debate over this hand actually.

I, like you guys said it's a really easy 3 bet. Things like that hadn't previously crossed my mind, much. I would just do it because AKo is almost surely the best hand and i'm proffiting from the fish in the pot with substandard hands.

I presented this hand to another solid player who said he ran that exact sim in turbo texas holdem and he also claimed that you should be calling pre-flop as you will make more money post-flop. A big part of it was being out of position with a field of players who isn't going anywhere. You can do a better job building a good pot when you want post-flop if you didn't 3 bet pf.

I then presented it to another solid player who also advocated calling and backed it up with the same stuff.

That's why i posted the question here. I want to hear some more solid players oppinions.

[stoxtrader]

I think its a pretty easy three bet.

[mmcd]

I think 3-betting is better here also, but one of the things that you must take into account here is the positioning of the players in the pot already. The fact that theres two loosies to act after the player with the lead (but before you assuming you check) tends to weigh in favor of letting the original PFR keep the lead in this hand.

OTOH, if the flop comes such that your nut no pair is probably the best hand, this creates a rather untenable situation unless the PFR will auto-raise if you bet out on a ragged flop.

3-betting is still better for a number of reasons but it is somewhat close IMO.

[bugstud]

I think it depends on what the player will 4bet with, given the 5 bet cap.

[Schneids]

I have had very similar debates with Scott about this. It has a little legitimacy when you have decent hand reading, very aggro opponents in on the hand who will use their PF read to misapply aggression post flop... However, the problem is it's so rare when you'll flop a good hand and they will flop a slightly worse second best for you to be able to take advantage of it.

I did see a hand where Scott called Foxy's raise against 4-5 limpers with QQ in the SB and then was able to peel off 4-bets on the turn against (I assume) Foxy's overpair on a Q-high board.

It all looks real great when you both have big hands, and it makes you look like a genius in that one instance, but the preflop overlay you're giving up every time you don't 3-bet simply CANNOT be made up postflop.

I'm going to guess that in this particular hand Scott made broadway and Nathan had top set and went many many bets with Scott because he simply assumed Scott would 3-bet with AK, and now Scott says his call was so great for hiding his strength when really he isn't going to get such a generous board again for such a long time...meanwhile slowly sucking away every cent of equity he earned from his one smooth call.

[I_am_B]

Greetings veteran 2+2ers. The player-in-question in this hand is myself, but before I present my case I will say that I believe this thread is a deliberate suckout to finally get me posting on these forums [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img], of which I will gladly raise the full amount. With that, I'll begin....

Obviously, one of the great dilemmas in this game is acting correctly upon the relative holdings of your opponents to your hand. And it's conventional to reraise AK in almost all situations relating to a raise and double-cold call (not triple, like bike said, there were two callers to me in the SB, making me the 4th to enter), but I think there are multiple reasons why calling MIGHT be a better play (this is me attempting to explain my intuition).

1. We are discussing the live Canterbury 30/60 game, not any online game, which are different animals. Simply playing properly preflop with straightforward postflop play is indeed good enough to win, but in a game where someone with as tight of an image as me comes in on a reraise, if my A or K hits, I get zero extra post-flop action unless I am beat. Fishy players at those limits often play remarkably correctly, especially against straightforward tight players, postflop.

2. This may be the most important reason, but it has to do with the relative favoritism of AK over other hands. AK is the statistically most volatile hand to extra players entering. The more players, the worse off AK is to win the hand. Why does this matter? Because giving extra pot-odds to players in a 4-5 way pot (note, this is the most important element of this segment, see aside at the bottom) with only a slight edge can cause you to lose multiple big bets on the later streets, encouraged by their now-correct play, by you putting more into a pot that you aren't that big of a favorite to win (and again, killing your extra postflop action, giving you little indication of where you are at if you don't hit the pair).

3. A key element of this hand is that I was in the SB. Had I been on the button, it would have probably been an automatic 3-bet. Why? Obviously, the ability to purchase (if I'm not the button) and maintain the final position gives me a huge advantage postflop in playing correctly and reading my oppts. By reraising out of the SB and if I miss the flop, what do I do? Check-call the flop meekly (unless I had set a previous precedent by acting the same with an overpair or top set) or bet out stubbornly, attempting to read/guess/pray that Mr. Rainbow Trout is going to lay down his 5 on the turn...or even the river? Being read needs to be taken into account as well. By reraising preflop in the SB, you make yourself first to act on the flop, therefore having to react first to the flop -- this gives even the average player a decent chance into reading into what you have, yet another reason why their play is either slowed down if you hit or call-induced if you miss (and throw out a weak-seeming bet).

4. And finally, as Schneids, or I should say Snides, commented, there is potential in getting some of those lost preflop bets back with acute postflop play (especially considering people will not be putting me on AK, having come in with a call). This will be enough to make a few extra bets, certainly not to make up for the lost preflop value. BUT, pots can also be picked up with just ace high if you have a good enough feel that nobody has a strong hand in spots where I couldn't pick them up if I had reraised preflop!! This should be easy to understand -- I am a VERY strong value player postflop, and the pot is smaller so there is less to lose when I check-raise the flop or turn on some given redraw against a player that respects me (of course, this hinges upon my ability to interpret what they have). And like I said above, the added certainty later in the hand makes up for what often are stupid lost bets/crying calldowns, thus again saving some of that preflop money. Additionally, there is a not-so-minimal amount of psychological value that is gained in having your opponent completely misread what you have by thinking that you'd normally reraise AK. It could be them folding a hand like 77 in the C/O after you open-raise mid with a weaker holding when they'd otherwise reraise, or them laying down middle or TP bad kick on the turn out of respect incorrectly in a future hand. Or even more exploitable: a well-timed future semi-bluff turn raise. I want my opponents to not just believe I am better than them, but to feel the wrath of my ability over them every time I'm in a pot with them (ok, maybe a little overblown [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]). But you get the point. Fear is quite readable.

More than ever, I am trying to take my game to a point where I have as much certainty about the given situation that I am in as possible so I can make the most correct play. That call right now is part of my evolution as a poker player -- maybe in the future, I'll be good enough to be able to make that 3-bet and not put in incorrect money thereafter, and maybe some of you are that good. But I don't think too many are, and I certainly accept some fallibility in my argument, but there are real considerations that I feel I've presented and would love replies on.

The aside: In principle, I see AK, barring the AA or KK tell, as a near-auto-3 bet hand heads up or 3 way, 4 or 5 way in the case that I explained, and for sure with 6 or more. Why would I 3-bet AK with 4 CCers in the above case but not 2 or 3? Because it is pure value at that point -- the point of the hand is for me to hit an A, K, or lucky straight, not to win pots with ace high. I feel like I'm certainly a better than 1/6 to win those pots in a 6 way pot with decent payoffs since the pot's huge.

Ok, enough for one post. :-) All flaws can be pointed out and repudiation welcome. I am evolving as a player just as much as the rest of us.

SL

[Schneids]

I am not in an ideal state of mind to respond to this post right now, but I really hope more people read this and give some input on what they think.

Maybe tomorrow when I am able to more thoroughly reconsider what you've said I'll make a more adequate response. For now, I hope others will....