Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

wouldn't KJs re-raise from the SB preflop?

i'm guessing he had something a little worse like Kxo, and JTs looks much more reasonable, as that wouldn't re-raise preflop.

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that you should be 3 betting other non-AA hands if you are check/raised on this turn? If not, stop... No need to respond... Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the forum [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

are you folding to the river 3-bet the way you played it?

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

I don't have a whole lot of short handed experience but I would have played it the same way. Is there anything he just calls in the SB with besides stuff like KQ or QJs or whatever? I would guess he would 3-bet most PP's preflop, so whats he calling the flop with? Is he going to try to steal this from a preflop 3-bettor?

If he does have a Q or better I think that was an awesome checkraise by him on the river. Very very nice stoxtrader.

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

The hand range I would 3-bet the turn with depends alot on my image for the session and what I think he's thinking, and what I think he thinks of me, etc.

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are this worried that he has to have a queen or 99 in order to check/raise the turn, otherwise he'll fold, then you should be able to clean him out in a short-handed game.

I see what you're saying, but it applies more to full games. Not short-handed games. I think you guys are VERY wrong on this and if you'd put some thought into it you might be able to see that. But I'm not one of your famed posters. So what do I know? No prob.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he check-raises the turn and I three bet, he is definitely not calling down with worse than a queen. What more do you need to know? If your default is to call down in those shoes, then your game needs some work. Occasionally I'll be making a move when I three-bet back at you, but not usually because I think a three-bet if i did have a queen would be bad because he can give up a worse hand. If I did have a queen, I'd call the turn cr and raise any river. God I hate when new posters get haughty when they are disagreed with.

I DON'T CARE HOW MANY POSTS YOU HAVE. I'm simply saying I disagree with your proposed line for this hand. We're blunt with eachother on this board when we disagree, you need to learn to not be so sensitive.
-James

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

Well then how can you make a blanket statement that 3-betting the turn is much worse than 3 betting the river? Or does all that thinking cease when your range of hands includes AA?

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he check-raises the turn and I three bet, he is definitely not calling down with worse than a queen. What more do you need to know? If your default is to call down in those shoes, then your game needs some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, which you seem to be missing YOUR 3 betting range here on the turn should a perfect frquency mix of AA kk AQ Ak-high so that stox has a 0EV decision with 88 etc.

You shouldn't have so [censored] up shania that when you 3 bet the turn stox can just throw away 66 because that way you are missing out on value with AK-high.

To see the shania better think of it as a NL hand. Unless one of you has bad shania all the plays, against all the possible hands, over the long run, on the turn and river should be 0EV for both of you.

edit: [ QUOTE ]
maybe I should be the turn just to give him a chance to bluff if he wanted to and had an appropriate hand to do so. Stox is not someone who I'd raise the river against because once again, I don't think he'd pay off.

[/ QUOTE ]

so x% of the time you have to do it with AK.

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually prefer smoothcalling the turn checkraise with the intention of raising the river if you really want to 3-bet the turn.

I also agree that 3-betting the river is bad. If the river had been any card *but* a king, I might think it's ok, but his checkraise on that card is bad news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I totally agree with this. In hindsight, maybe I should be the turn just to give him a chance to bluff if he wanted to and had an appropriate hand to do so. Stox is not someone who I'd raise the river against because once again, I don't think he'd pay off.
-James

Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he check-raises the turn and I three bet, he is definitely not calling down with worse than a queen. What more do you need to know? If your default is to call down in those shoes, then your game needs some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, which you seem to be missing YOUR 3 betting range here on the turn should a perfect frquency mix of AA kk AQ Ak-high so that stox has a 0EV decision with 88 etc.

You shouldn't have so [censored] up shania that when you 3 bet the turn stox can just throw away 66 because that way you are missing out on value with AK-high.

To see the shania better think of it as a NL hand. Unless one of you has bad shania all the plays, against all the possible hands, over the long run, on the turn and river should be 0EV for both of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that my shania is that messed up, I am saying that this particular opponent is unlikely to pay me off with less. If I had AK high, then we could discuss the merits of three-bet bluffing(which would be quite valid), but I'm talking about this hand in particular. There are a lot of opponents against whom I'd three-bet many hands on a board like this. Stox isn't one of them.
-James