Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather try such a move on the flop. If I get played with in multiple directions I'm plenty willing to let the hand go on the turn without having to invest the big bucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why a move on the turn works and jamming the flop does not.

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

True. My feeling is that if the mouse is as weak as he is being made out to be, the flop move might be almost as likely to work and slightly less expensive, hence being a better "value" overall.

But I certainly see the arguments for the turn move. If it works its really, really hot.

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

After calling with an A on the flop, a mousey opponent is still going to call the 3-bet. They're like OK I have an A, still got some cards coming, let's see if I improve on the turn. When they get to a blankish turn, and now some guy CHECKRAISES THE BIG BET STREET BOOOOOOOOOM they stop thinking one pair is good and they're out.

So I think checkraise turn > 3-bet flop.

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to lead you need to 3bet. If the mouse still calls then you know you're beat and can checkfold unimproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the mouse calls on the flop, it's fairly like that he has me beat. It's unlikely that he's limping UTG+1 with 78s so my concerns are 66/99 and Ax hands. I don't want to put 3-bets in on the flop when I'm likely behind. The question is how likely is it that he just has a weak one-pair hand that I can fold with a turn check/raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

3betting is more consistent with the hand you are representing. A turn checkraise looks exactly like what you are trying to do (shut out a better hand). I think if you 3bet there is a very good chance he folds an ace. A turn checkraise is also more expensive.

-SmileyEH

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

I like the 3 bet there also as calling down w/ maniac looks like a great scenario. If you successfully get HU w/ maniac, yo u lead turn?

If raised do you call down?

Unrelated: Did the converter get fixed because I have been having problems with it lately? Something I should know?

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

on the surface, assuming:
1. UTG+1, based on your read, is holding Ax. given his stats, he likely holds AT-AK, yes?
2. MP3 holds trash or 2nd best and you are likely to either beat him in showdown or fold him on the turn.

x is probability you win, ie. fold UTG+1's better hand, if you raise
1-x probability you lose, ie. UTG+1 calls w/ a better hand, if you raise.

10x + -2(1-x)
2 = 12X
X = 2/12 = 16.666

so if X > 17%, raise.

i think there are 2 more interesting questions here:
1. does UTG+1's low aggression level here mean that we believe UTG+1 will tend to call down? or fold? fwiw, i think its the former. that slightly worsens the raise option.
2. if UTG+1 does call a raise and we're UI on the river, do we fold for 1? what if we're 3bet on the turn and by whom?

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

Does the mouse like coldcalling? If not, I raise the turn. Otherwise fold.

Also, there would be no shame -- indeed, there would be glory! -- in folding to the flop raise. But you can make a thin call with implied odds, which I'm guessing was your thought.

gm

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

[ QUOTE ]

3betting is more consistent with the hand you are representing. A turn checkraise looks exactly like what you are trying to do (shut out a better hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Sometimes I'll play AK/AQ with Jason's line -- just call the flop raise and c/r the turn. It can be the best way to protect TPTK against weak draws in a large multi-way pot.

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

How can you be so sure MP doesn't have an ace here? What hands could he have? What the hell are you doing back at 2/4?

Re: Math problem with QQ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can you be so sure MP doesn't have an ace here? What hands could he have?

[/ QUOTE ]

The maniac would have raised any ace preflop. On the flop, he could have middle pair, bottom pair, a pocket pair or absolutely nothing.