3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I've been wondering whether I'm missing opportunities by folding some hands, rather than 3-betting them. Consider the following situations.
(1) You are in co. A TAG (who is solid post-flop) raises in mp. If you 3-bet, you can be relatively sure the hand will end up HU. Do you fold or 3-bet with: -K10o -KJo -Q10s -A9s -A8s -A7s -J10s (2) Now assume that the MP player is somewhat of a LAG, i.e., he open-raises lightly and will follow up with aggression on the flop, but is not a maniac and will slow down eventually. You still expect a 3-bet to get it hu. Do your answers change at all? (3) Assume that the MP player is weak/tight. So his open-raise means he has a premium hand, but he is also capable of folding post-flop too easily. Do your answers change? (4) Finally, assume that the MP is kind of in between a TAG and a LAG, but now you expect that the BB will call even if you 3-bet. BB is basically very loose, likes to see flops and turns, though often folds on the river. Do your answers change now? |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I might pop (2) with A8s and (3) with J10s. Figuring I have a better hand vs (2) and Im not dominated vs (3).
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
I might pop (2) with A8s and (3) with J10s. Figuring I have a better hand vs (2) and Im not dominated vs (3). [/ QUOTE ] Vs a weak tight raiser who might have TT-AA, AJ+, AQ+, you are often dominated with JTs. TT - 3 combos - dominated JJ - 3 combos - dominated QQ - 6 combos - dominated KK - 6 combos - dominated AA - 6 combos - dominated AJ - 12 combos - dominated AQ - 16 combos - not dominated AK - 16 combos - not dominated Dominated in 36. Not dominated in 32. When you are not dominated, you are behind, and this passive guy won't like folding his AK very often. I think it is way too expensive to 3-bet, just fold. |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I fold them all in every situation. Even against a LAG, you're dominated most of the time.
The only exception is JTs which I might 3-bet or just cold call if the initial raiser is weak-tight post flop and/or the blinds tend to come in most of the time. I don't mind HU against weak tight and I wouldn't mind 4-way with JTs, so I'm good whichever way it goes. |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
It depends a little on how he plays but a 40/30 guy wont have you dominated imo. Sure it adds a bit of variance but if the blinds fold I think its +EV.
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I fold them all. Domination sucks.
Guy. |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I fold all these hands. Once in a while I will 3-bet with J10s or any of these hands, but almost never against a solid TAG.
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
We now have 3 people who have said they would sometimes 3-bet with JTs. I think that is awful. Who knows, maybe I am wrong though.
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
Seeing these responses, perhaps I haven't been missing out on chances after all.
I'm just trying to come up with some borderline hands for 3-betting. Clear 3 bets to me are: AK, AQ, AJs, KQs and pocket pairs of 88 and up. If the ones I mentioned before were clear folds, then how do people feel about 3-betting with AJo, A10s, A10o, KQo and 77 (with the lineup I mentioned before)? |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
We now have 3 people who have said they would sometimes 3-bet with JTs. I think that is awful. Who knows, maybe I am wrong though. [/ QUOTE ] Usually it's awful. If the initial better is weak-tight post flop though, you've got a good shot at getting them to fold a better hand (AK/AQ/AJ/AT) that misses the flop because you're showing you've got them beat. To some extent, you could pull this stunt with any 2 cards, but JTs is a semi-bluff since you can actually hit something and(this is important) it's a hand where you don't mind the blinds coming in. Trying this move with 27o just because the initial raiser is weak-tight leaves you totally screwed if one or both blinds come in. Still, it's usually terrible. |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
But ckessel, one of my questions specifically was directed to 3-betting a weak/tight player, when we know the blinds will fold. So under your reasoning, why are we 3-betting there with just J10s of the hands I originally mentioned?
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
But ckessel, one of my questions specifically was directed to 3-betting a weak/tight player, when we know the blinds will fold. So under your reasoning, why are we 3-betting there with just J10s of the hands I originally mentioned? [/ QUOTE ] JTs is a candidate because I think it's less likely to be dominated than a K, Q, or weak Ax hand. JTs also has more potential to flop a made hand or draw, while KTo or A8s is less likely to flop a good draw and any pair you hit is very suspect to domination. JT is suspect as well, but I don't think as suspect as a A, K or Q against a weak-tight raiser. And you can't assume the blinds will fold. You can hope, but if one of them has a hand, they'll come along. JTs is more flexible if a blind calls or raises. If you 3 bet A8s and a blind calls, there's a damn good chance he also dominates your Ace. JTs may be dominated, but it plays multiway better than A8s will. Again though, I think 3-betting any of the hands is usually bad, even on a weak-tight raiser. If I was going to pick one of the hands to occasionally make a move with though, it'd be JTs. |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
What do you guys think of 3-betting pps? I like to do it a LOT. I know that they probably dont have equity by themselves but they play so good in position. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
As I mentioned earlier, I feel that pocket pairs of 88 and up are easy 3-bets at most tables. 77 and 66 feel borderline against unknowns.
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
Yeah I 3-bet 88 easily but I meant like isolating with 44-55. I have done it a couple of times recently and I feel quite comfortable with it if you have a somewhat decent image(ie they have to believe you only do this with AK,TT or something).
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
I fold them all. Domination sucks. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] but position and initiative do not |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
If the ones I mentioned before were clear folds, then how do people feel about 3-betting with AJo, A10s, A10o, KQo and 77 (with the lineup I mentioned before)? [/ QUOTE ] I 3-bet all of these hands pretty often, but not always. Sometimes I fold them if the raiser is too tight, and in an early position. Err, 77 I never fold. |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
I fold them all. Domination sucks. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] Same. Krishan |
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I fold them all. Domination sucks. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] but position and initiative do not [/ QUOTE ] Don't tease me Josh. Are you suggesting that you might 3-bet any of those hands in the op? |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.