Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. If there is a coldcaller I won't three-bet, and if I think that the pfr is tricky enough to both cap the flop and bet the turn with overcards I won't three-bet, but in the absence of these circumstances then yes I will three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
The absence of a read makes me call down from the raise. A 3-bet puts you in trouble. He could very well just smooth call the flop 3-bet and raise our turn bet with AA/KK or start calling down with QQ/JJ making us unable to fold, but still put in 1 bet/street. Call down from the flop raise and make him keep bluffing is best IMO. As said, a case could be made for betting the river though.

[ QUOTE ]
FTOP, my friend.


[/ QUOTE ]
What's FTOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, if he smoothcalls our three-bet and then raises the turn, we can lay down. But with your line...we are just letting him take a free card with AK but paying him off when he has a higher pair. 3-betting the flop, unless we are against an extremely aggressive, tricky player, will define villain's hand.

FTOP is the Fundamental Theorem Of Poker. You know what that is, right?

Will

Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

[ QUOTE ]
First off, if he smoothcalls our three-bet and then raises the turn, we can lay down.

[/ QUOTE ]
Losing only 1SB less then it would have cost to take it to a SD hiving the chance of drawing out on him and gaining more from letting him keep bluffing.

[ QUOTE ]
3-betting the flop, unless we are against an extremely aggressive, tricky player, will define villain's hand.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it defines if we're ahead or behind since he'll often start calling down with QQ/JJ.

I can see pros and cons with both lines, but which to use is player dependant to me.

[ QUOTE ]
FTOP is the Fundamental Theorem Of Poker. You know what that is, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. I'm interested in how you would apply it to prove this wrong though:
"The mistake they make by calling these two bets one by one is equal to the mistake they're making calling it 2 cold."

If we check/raise the flop and all 4 players go to the flop for 2 bets it's better than if we bet, gets raised and have 2 cold callers, and 4 players to the flop for 2 bets.

Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First off, if he smoothcalls our three-bet and then raises the turn, we can lay down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Losing only 1SB less then it would have cost to take it to a SD hiving the chance of drawing out on him and gaining more from letting him keep bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this english? You need to be clearer here. And btw we gain A LOT MORE from getting him to fold AK than we do from letting him bluff with it.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
3-betting the flop, unless we are against an extremely aggressive, tricky player, will define villain's hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it defines if we're ahead or behind since he'll often start calling down with QQ/JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. Sometimes the three-bet will not define his hand. However, calling his flop raise will NEVER EVER define villain's hand, and we give villain total control of the hand by taking a passive line.

[ QUOTE ]

I can see pros and cons with both lines, but which to use is player dependant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement...but you should only use the calldown line against an extremely tricky and aggressive player. That's my point. Against a player who does not fit this profile (which is most players) 3-betting the flop is better because it keeps us in the lead and also will help us define villain's hand, while calling doesn't do either.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FTOP is the Fundamental Theorem Of Poker. You know what that is, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I'm interested in how you would apply it to prove this wrong though:

"The mistake they make by calling these two bets one by one is equal to the mistake they're making calling it 2 cold."


[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I think about it, I don't need FTOP to show you how this works.

Say you are one of the late position coldcallers and you are holding KJ. If our hero checks and the pfr bets, we would be correct in calling getting 9-1 odds. That is to say, our call is not a mistake. By the same token, calling hero's check-raise getting 13-1 odds is not a mistake.

But if our hero bets and the PFR raises, suddenly it IS a mistake to coldcall getting only 4.5-1 odds.

[ QUOTE ]

If we check/raise the flop and all 4 players go to the flop for 2 bets it's better than if we bet, gets raised and have 2 cold callers, and 4 players to the flop for 2 bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not have anything to do with whether or not the coldcallers made mistakes. Just because the same situation can come about from two different lines does not mean that the two lines have the same expectation.

Will

Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

I edit the qoute to this:
"Losing only 1SB less then it would have cost to take it to a SD (by not 3-betting the flop and call down) giving the chance of draw out on him (by also seeing the river) and gaining more from letting him keep bluffing (when he bets a hand like AK on the turn).

[ QUOTE ]
You are right. Sometimes the three-bet will not define his hand. However, calling his flop raise will NEVER EVER define villain's hand, and we give villain total control of the hand by taking a passive line.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're largely overestimating the importance of "defining hands" here, betting and raising for information is rarely correct. Especially when the information you get don't tell you much (it won't tell you if you're ahead or behind).

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I think about it, I don't need FTOP to show you how this works.

Say you are one of the late position coldcallers and you are holding KJ. If our hero checks and the pfr bets, we would be correct in calling getting 9-1 odds. That is to say, our call is not a mistake. By the same token, calling hero's check-raise getting 13-1 odds is not a mistake.

But if our hero bets and the PFR raises, suddenly it IS a mistake to coldcall getting only 4.5-1 odds.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a really flawed reasoning.

First of all he's getting 12:2 on the cold call. The net result of his flop odds will be 13:2 after hero calls.

If we have 1 caller paying 2SB 1 by 1 (ie we check/raise him) the net result of his flop odds will be 13:2.

If he's holding a hand that don't have the odds to see a turn card for getting 13:2 he's making a mistake and it's not effected of how he calls the flop bets. I hope you can see that.

Since he'll call the bets 1 by 1 with worse hands than he will call 2 cold with, he will do mistakes more frequently when he calls them 1 by 1.

Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

[ QUOTE ]
And btw we gain A LOT MORE from getting him to fold AK than we do from letting him bluff with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. We won't be able to fold AK though, since he got great odds, but as you say we don't gain more by letting him bluff than we do by betting ourself. I guess you call a flop cap and check/fold the turn UI.

By 3-betting the flop, calling a cap and folding to a turn bet we save 1BB against just calling down. But we don't get to see a river card which will help us draw out on PFR ~4% of the time worth about 0.3BB. Plus the risk of getting smooth called on the flop and raised on the turn in which case we lose another SB. And when he holds QQ/JJ we also lose an extra SB if he calls down from the flop 3-bet. Add the risk he'll cap the flop with a hand we beat and we're folding the best hand and the greater chance of getting a BB in from a hand we beat on the river as a bluff when we're calling down and I think those lines are pretty equal against an unknown.

Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

Missed a value bet on the end.

Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

I don't even remember what we were even arguing over.

How the hell did this become a ten-reply argument?

Will

Re: 99 in sb, flop an overpair
 

[ QUOTE ]
How the hell did this become a ten-reply argument?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really need to study for an exam I'm having next week, thus I desperately try to find something else than studying to do.