\"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

How many of you have said this recently? Raise your hand...

I think it is basically always wrong to 3-bet for the purpose of "finding out where I'm at." There are two reasons:

The information is unreliable

So you are looking to see if your opponent just calls your 3-bet, or if he 4-bets. Let's examine what each reaction could mean.

Calls the 3-bet:
<ul type="square">[*]Because he's waiting for the turn to raise again with a big hand[*]Because you've scared a timid player into calling you down with a better hand[*]Because it confirms that your opponent was screwing around with a weak hand or a draw[/list]4-bets you:
<ul type="square">[*]Because he has a big hand[*]Because he has a big draw and wants to semi-bluff you and/or try for a free card[*]Because he likes to say "Cappuccino!"[*]Because he's overplaying a weak hand[*]Because he 3-bet you preflop with K4s, missed the flop, and now has to play it like the nuts to have any hope of winning[/list]
No matter how your opponent reacts, you STILL don't know if you are ahead or behind. What good is "finding out where you're at" if you don't find out where you're at?

You bloat the pot

The second problem is that you make the pot really big. By the time you get 4-bet, the pot often becomes too big to fold! So, you either fold too much when the pot is big (does that ring any bells?), or you don't use the "cheap" information that you got.

In poker, we should play tighter when the pot is small and looser when the pot is big. When you raise for information, you are planning to fold if the pot gets bigger.

Having said all that, it might be right to raise for information against a particularly PREDICTABLE player. If his reaction to the 4-bet RELIABLY tells you about his hand, then it may be worth it. Online, this is almost never the case. (1) You see new players every half hour, and (2) many people play like total maniac goofballs online. 3-betting with the intent to fold to a 4-bet (or call the 4-bet and fold on the turn) against these goons is a TERRIBLE play.

Also, it's ok to call down, guys. You aren't a "horrible calling station" if you call down with a hand you aren't sure is best (but is too good to fold because of the size of the pot). This is especially true if the pot is already heads-up or three-handed. It is no longer so important to protect your hand with a raise... so you can often start calling down.

Raising on the flop is almost never a "cheap" way to get information that will "save you money" on later streets. The information is far too unreliable. "Cheap" often means paying four bets to see a turn card that should have only cost one or two. "Saving you money" often ends up meaning making bad folds in big pots.

Break the habit...

MajorKong
 

I really appreciate the time you take to post these elaborate topics.

Next time I'm in Vegas I owe you a beer.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

Good post. I hope this isn't in response to the AK hand below where I suggested raising the turn. I wasn't suggesting raising for information.
[ QUOTE ]
Raising on the flop is almost never a "cheap" way to get information that will "save you money" on later streets. The information is far too unreliable. "Cheap" often means paying four bets to see a turn card that should have only cost one or two. "Saving you money" often ends up meaning making bad folds in big pots.


[/ QUOTE ]


I remember a thread a while back where someone suggested raising on the flop for information in a multiway pot. I couldn't see how you could get any reliable information by doing that.

There is a thing called diasnosticity of information. When you raise a predictable player the information you get is diagnostic. You can be sure what his reaction represents. Most players call too much and don't raise enough so you don't really get diagnostic information when you raise.

I also think it is funny when I see players call on the river "for information". They are paying for information that they can easily get for free.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

Thanks so much for confirming what I have felt in my gut to be correct for months. I too have never understood the whole concept of "betting to find out where you are at." I am glad a homerun hitter with your type of respect in these forums has finally come out and said this so that we can lay this topic to rest. Great post (as usual)!

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I hope this isn't in response to the AK hand below where I suggested raising the turn. I wasn't suggesting raising for information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was in response to my "Two Hands for Review" post in which I played QQ on a board that flopped KK. If that's the case, I'm glad my post lead to this post because this is excellent information and I'm sure it will plug a decent sized hole in my game and in that of many others.

Ed, hurry up and release that book.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

Hear! Hear!

Yeah, I don't raise for information simply because I don't know that I trust the information I got and because frequently I don't know how to interpret it. Sometimes I do get interpretable information with my bets and raises, but I just consider that a bonus to whatever play I had in mind.

--Zetack

Essay by Sklansky
 

This is an excerpt from the book Poker, Gaming, $ Life that can be found on the front page of 2+2. I plan on picking it up whenever it shows up at my local Borders.

Paying for Information

-Brian

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

You should rarely be calling down with position. You need to use your position to find out where you are and to charge potential draws and to take free showdowns.

Example: You have QQ on the button and raise one early limper. The big blind, a seemingly sane player, calls. Flop is K T 8 with 2 spades. You bet and are checkraised by the big blind and the limper folds. Calling that and the turn and river is bad. The standard play is to pop him on the turn and usually take the free showdown. He could easily have a hand like AT or a multitude of draws that you need to charge him for and obviously you can release to further aggression. Why else is position so "powerful" as quoted by the pundits?

Calling down out of position is usually fine though.

Basically its just a question of knowing how sane your opponents are. But I pretty much agree that for the most part the "trend" of the LL players on this board put in too much action on the flop and not enough later streets especially heads up.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

You should rarely be calling down with position. You need to use your position to find out where you are and to charge potential draws and to take free showdowns.

Example: You have QQ on the button and raise one early limper. The big blind, a seemingly sane player, calls. Flop is K T 8 with 2 spades. You bet and are checkraised by the big blind and the limper folds. Calling that and the turn and river is bad. The standard play is to pop him on the turn and usually take the free showdown. He could easily have a hand like AT or a multitude of draws that you need to charge him for and obviously you can release to further aggression. Why else is position so "powerful" as quoted by the pundits?

I agree with your example (I'd usually raise the turn also in that spot). I wouldn't call it "raising for information." You are raising to protect your hand... to get your opponent to fold a hand that has outs to beat you (or at least to put in two bets with that draw instead of one).

You are implicitly counting on the information of being 3-bet (or bet into on the river) to be reliable. If you can't count on that, then calling is often better.

When I said, "it's ok to call down," I meant, "don't put in five bets on the flop and fold to a six-bet because you think that by calling on the turn and river you become a calling station."

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

If I raise the turn with position specifically with a hand that I intend to check the river with, I do it with the knowledge that I simply cannot call a turn 3-bet. If my opponent 3-bets me with a worse hand then I was outplayed - so be it. I also immediately take him off the "sane" list [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. But the real thing to consider (and I can't believe you didn't stress it you sklanskymunchkin) is that you need to do this only when you have no outs. Basically hold'em really does boil down to "check(call) with outs, bet(raise) with no outs". In my example if the turn was a 9 (or you had AT to begin with) it would probably be a mistake to raise the turn unless you have a real read on your opponent.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

But the real thing to consider (and I can't believe you didn't stress it you sklanskymunchkin) is that you need to do this only when you have no outs. Basically hold'em really does boil down to "check(call) with outs, bet(raise) with no outs".

Fair enough.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

I have done this recently and the explanation can help me out with a leak in my game. Now what?

Why do you 3-bet?

1) I think I have the best hand
2) I have the best draw and I'm trying for a free card on the turn
3) What else?

If 3-bet to, why do you cap? Why call?

Many questions, looking for answers.

Nice Post N/M
 

Bump.
 

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

Thanks for another good post. Can't wait for the book!

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

wtf how did this get to the top, the last post before mine was in APRIL!!!

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's ok to call down, guys. You aren't a "horrible calling station" if you call down with a hand you aren't sure is best (but is too good to fold because of the size of the pot). This is especially true if the pot is already heads-up or three-handed. It is no longer so important to protect your hand with a raise... so you can often start calling down.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read any responses yet but this is important.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

Note that i didn't bump this thread to the top i just found it on the first page... hence my befuddled response above.

Re: \"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood...\"
 

Excellent post Ed. Sure it's from months and months ago, but I'll leave my two-cents anyway, now that I've graduated from lurker status ;P

Aggression is key in poker, and we all know that. Getting bets into the pot when you've got the best of it, or the best draw, etc. etc. is the key to winning good amounts.

However, it seems as if once the average to moderately-good player reads all about how aggressive the top players are, etc. etc... they go nuts.

This is one of those examples. Normally, what do you want to put bets into the pot with a hand you're not all that confident on..

1)You have outs to a winner/think you could be best at the moment.
2)You think some/all opponents will fold.
3)You want to see how your opponents react.

Well, if #1 is unlikely, and #2 is even less likely (I dunno about you guys, but especially at lower limits, there aren't that many people who will raise you on the flop if you bet out, and then fold to a re-raise very often.)

That leaves #3. Ed took care of many of the reasons that #3 is rarely effective.

And on the idea of bloating the pot: Hey, that DOES help you find out where you're at... by artificially swelling the pot, you automatically have an excuse to call down your second-best, in those two magical words: "pot odds."

Am I crazy, or do most of the posts about raising to "find out where I stood" relate to top pair, or a PP with one overcard on the board? It makes sense, as that's one of the more common holdings where you like your hand, but being beat isn't far fetched at all.

It's a pretty simple situation to think through. You bet out with tptk. Would your opponent tend to raise with a hand that doesn't beat tptk? If so, what are you expecting with your 3-bet?

I would contend that the majority of players that have a hand worthy of raising on the flop are not going to fold to a 3-bet. If you're uncertain of where you're at in the hand, and you 3-bet...

A)Somebody has a strong hand that annihilates your weaker holding. He caps, and you're probably forced to call it down. Net profit: -2 small bets.

B)Somebody has a stronger hand, that is slightly stronger than your moderate, uncertain holding. He calls, and calls it down. Net profit: -1 small bet.

C)Somebody has a weaker hand that is willing to call it down. Net profit: +1 Small bet

D)You've got his hand dominated, the raise was a bluff, and he's frightened now, and will fold on the turn, as opposed to betting out. -1 to 3 Big bets.

E)It was a semi-bluff, and while you're probably right in getting the money in when you're ahead, the extra small bet he's faced with on the flop isn't going to really phase him. You make an extra small bet here when the draw misses, and lose one when it hits.

Basically, the only situation I can see where 3-betting with a questionable holding is a strong play is one where you are fairly certain the player would make the initial raise with a hand that you beat, and would be willing to call it down after you make him well aware (with the three bet) that you don't aren't gonna be leaving this pot any time soon.

Now, as for getting information through betting... I think it's much more effective in other situations, namely leading at a pot, and putting in the first raise.

There are myriad holdings Joe Average would check with on the flop, and not much less an amount of holdings that he would lead with. Here, I think you have a much better chance of narrowing down your opponent's holdings by betting/raising, not to mention some other benefits (hate to see a pot with 6 people in it go checked through, when 4 of them would fold to any bet without second thought. No free cards here!)

Maybe I'm just crazy.