Re: A couple interesting hands - maybe
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that 3bettting is very rarely, if ever, going to be -EV (unless it ends up HU with a better hand).

Just keep in mind that if you are behind - folding out ANY hand (failing folding every J) is going to be less +EV.

And we both agree that Hero is not ahead here often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that we're against UI overs and a weaker pair often enough here to make this a definite 3-bet.

edit: Got rid of the stuff that isn't really central to the disagreement.

Re: A couple interesting hands - maybe
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'd say that we're against UI overs and a weaker pair often enough here to make this a definite 3-bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Which one of these just raised the flop?

Is it the PFR who just bet into 4 people on a semi scary flop who just has overcards?
or is it the guy who just raised the same PFR in to 3 people on the semiscary flop who has the weaker pair?

Re: A couple interesting hands - maybe
 

I 3bet the first hand.

Second hand I could play it so many ways depending on previous hands. Probably go for CR on the flop. If he calls I lead the turn of course. If he 3bets I go for bet/3bet on the turn.

Re: A couple interesting hands - maybe
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd say that we're against UI overs and a weaker pair often enough here to make this a definite 3-bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Which one of these just raised the flop?

Is it the PFR who just bet into 4 people on a semi scary flop who just has overcards?
or is it the guy who just raised the same PFR in to 3 people on the semiscary flop who has the weaker pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

SB is capable of betting UI overs here IMO, and the loose BB's wide range of hands could include weaker pairs here, especially if he believes SB can CB.

Even if you're skeptical of this, remember that given our flop equity this parlay doesn't need to occur very often to justify a 3-bet.

Re: A couple interesting hands - maybe
 

I understand what you're saying Redd as well as what everyone else has said.

The 3bet is justified and is +EV. 3betting does have a chance (very slim) of being -EV though.
Calling will ALWAYS be +EV.

The question is - which one is more positive.

The difference comes down to the equity added by knocking out overcards vs the added value of letting other hands remain.

If we are behind already, the value of knocking out overcards is nothing. And we are behind a large percentage of the time.

Other things to consider.

- the number of times you isolate yourself with a better hand.
- the number of times you can knock out a J. If this does work though, you add three 9 outs but implicitly take away a J out.
- The chance of a free card
- Would you make more on subsequent streets, when you make your hand, had you not 3bet and let others in or let others keep their initiative.
- Will someone else 3bet or cap anyway.
- Will players behind call two but not three when you are drawing.
- Will hands behind call 3 anyway.

These questions aren't easily answered.
- what are the likely holdings of the villians.
- how many bets are they willing to put in.
- will they be aggressive with marginal made hands.
- will they call two but not three.
- does he only raise with premium hands.
- are they capable of folding to continued aggression on a scary board.

I'm not saying that calling is better. I'm just saying that it's a little more complicated than "Easy 3bet"

FWIW. I 3bet.
IMO. The opportunity to gain the button for subsequent streets is the most compelling factor.

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] constructive discussion.

Results
 

Hand 1

I 3 bet the flop. Everyone cleared out and SB also folded. BB check called me down and showed T6 and MHIG

I thought about just calling the SB raise in hopes fo keeping people in for my straight draw. I decided against it as I thought the rest of the field would probably fold to 2 bets let alone 3.

Hand 2

I check raised the flop and LP called. I bet the turn and LP folded. MHIG