3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Part of my recent quest to determine how wide I should make my range of 3-betting hands preflop.

A pretty good player - perhaps slightly more aggressive than the average TAG, but solid postflop - open raises from MP. You have J10s at co. At this table, 3-betting is very likely to ensure that the hand will be HU on the flop.

I've been mucking thisl. Should I be 3-betting instead?

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Remember the the food pyramid you learned in elementary school? You should be 3 betting pre flop in this spot like you should be consuming "Fats and Oils," sparingly.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

the decision is between call and raise 4 me.
i do both about equally.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

I like the raise as long as you're not doing it to much, or seen as laggy.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Not exactly a clear concensus. Perhaps I should have created a poll?

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

The decision also depends on how often this guy goes to showdown. Some TAGs fold more than others, obviously. If this guy likes to call down, then unless you hit you're stuck at showdown with J-high.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Well, I'm thinking of an opponent who does not blindly go to sd no matter what, and is willing to back off occasionally.

Does that change things for you?

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

5 handed or less this is an automatic three bet for a lot of reasons. If he really is solid then all the more reason to three bet. If he is an internet ace high call down artist then I guess the situational optimal play would be too fold, but I think metagame considerations call for a raise. Got to use your positon strongly in these pots.

Sqred

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

I think a lot of people over value JTs

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of people over value JTs

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say such an absurd thing?

Oh wait, you read the rest of the thread where many posters want to go to war with a hijack open-raise by a good player. Nevermind, you are obviously right.

Seriously, 3-betting JTs here is spitting on the gap principle. You cannot do that against a good opponent and expect a happy ending. Only if Villain is really weak can you make up your inferior hand with fold equity.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

If you're going to start 3 betting with the worst hand then your opponent had better like folding.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

i fold here.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Hi Wynton,

I think you can be very conservative with your preflop 3-betting and do just fine. These games are very loose and that means for the most part you would be well advised to only 3-bet when you have some showdown value. I suspect that you wouldn't be going far (if any) wrong if you never 3-bet with less than K high unless the game is very shorthanded or the raiser folds very easily postflop. You can probably find that type of opponent with about the same frequency as you find an albino tiger.

Cartman

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
3-betting JTs here is spitting on the gap principle. You cannot do that against a good opponent and expect a happy ending. Only if Villain is really weak can you make up your inferior hand with fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the key question. Cartman commented, "These games are very loose and that means for the most part you would be well advised to only 3-bet when you have some showdown value."

Yet, earlier I mentioned that I was talking about an opponent who didn't inevitably go to SD (which is kind of one think I assumed was implied when we talked about TAGs).

So, if villain is capable of laying down the hand, do we really need sd value to 3-bet?

Can math help here? I'm not capable of the analysis, but I think there are the analytical steps:

(1) Figure out TAG's initial raising range, presumably AA-77, AK-A10 (or down to A7s), KQ, KJ, QJ, etc,
(2) Figure out chances that he'll have a pair on the flop (including the times that he had a pocket pair).
(3) Of that number, consider the times that there will be 2 or more overcards to his pair, in which case this particular villain presumably will lay the hand down before sd (again, this assumes also that hero's image is not over the top aggressive).
(4) Account for how often villain will continue on draw.
(5) Account for times we'll hit the flop and win extra bets by having some element of disguise.

I'm too stupid to calculate all of this, but if someone else is capable, I'd appreciate it.

The bottom line question for me is whether villain will miss the flop (and perhaps turn) often enough so that we don't need SD value?

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Your position on the raiser closes the gap as well. I think this play has potential to be +ev in the long run. The blinds are a big factor and your opponent's post-flop play is also a big factor.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

I forgot about the button who is perhaps a bigger factor. I don't like this play from the co.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot about the button who is perhaps a bigger factor. I don't like this play from the co.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specified in my example that 3-betting at this table will basically ensure that the hand is HU.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

How could you ensure it? The button, small blind, and big blind could wake up to QQ, KK, AA, or AK. Each of them has almost a 2% chance of being dealt one of those hands.

I think the play is a very close one. I would guess that it might be +ev from the button if certain conditions are met but from the co, I'm guessing it's -ev. JTs plays well against AK, AQ, KQ and medium pocket pairs. You are in big trouble if you're up against AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AJ, KJ, KT, QJ or QT. The question is whether your position and the additional blind money can compensate for all those hands where you are dominated. You have to to take into account that the button/sb/bb could call or raise no matter how unlikely you may think it is. Your opponent's level of post-flop play is going to play a role as well.

This is a play I'd much prefer to make against a very aggressive player or a tilting player w/ a tight button and blinds behind me.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, earlier I mentioned that I was talking about an opponent who didn't inevitably go to SD (which is kind of one think I assumed was implied when we talked about TAGs).

[/ QUOTE ]
You can do all the analysis you want but it will not make the gap principle go away. 3-betting a hand that is at the absolute bottom of Villain's range is mathematically unsound.

It all comes down to this: if Villain folds so much that you can profitably ignore the gap principle, then Villain is not a good player in this situation. We call them "good players" because they don't give away their money.

You need to start an argument for isolating with JTs by identifying an edge you hope to exploit. For example:

1. Villain openraises 50% of his hands. Now we have reasonable hand strength.

2. Villain is weak and incapable of continuing past the turn when he fails to pair up.

3. Villain is a world champion but he believes we only 3-bet with AA-QQ.

Or whatever. But you must start with something.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It all comes down to this: if Villain folds so much that you can profitably ignore the gap principle, then Villain is not a good player in this situation. We call them "good players" because they don't give away their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Villain is weak and incapable of continuing past the turn when he fails to pair up.

[/ QUOTE ]

These remarks suggest to me that maybe I'm projecting my own weakness. Putting myself in villain's spot: if I open-raise with AJ and get 3-bet by someone who doesn't seem unusuall aggressive - and who has not made a habit of 3-betting me before - then I am not going to SD unimproved. Indeed, I think that there are many boards where I won't even see the river.

Are you suggesting that this is too weak?

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that this is too weak?

[/ QUOTE ]
A good player can fold the best hand sometimes without making the JTs 3-bet +EV. The key is not to fold too many better hands.

There are no easy answers here because being a good heads up player is not easy.

A guideline I use when analyzing is to consider how I would play my entire range of hands in a given situation. In particular I think about what percentage of the time I will be folding. Then I ask myself if I'm happy with that considering the pot odds and the chance that I started with the best hand.

For example I post a hand a couple of days ago where I folded AQ unimproved on the turn after being raised on the flop. I've thought some more about that hand. If I'm folding AQ (nut no pair) it logically follows that I must be folding all of my worse hands too. That means I am folding 41% of my preflop range if Villain decides to bluff raise the flop and bet the turn.

This is a very disturbing number because it looks like folding AQ may be exploitable error in the sense that it is profitable for him to risk 2 BB by autobluffing any worthless hand.

Now if his PFR range was AA, KK, QQ, Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] then he would very rarely have a bluffing hand. It would be correct for him to autobluff the Granny but it would be equally correct for me to let him have it due to terrible pot odds. But Villain's actual range is enormous and my big unimproved aces are very often the best hand. I certainly have fine pot odds to call AQ against an autobluffer.

Another factor is that I will often pair my hand or pick up a gutshot on the turn that will allow me to see the river. If I make it a rule to showdown any big ace that turns a gutshot then it cuts down on his bluff odds a lot.

Overall my conclusion is that my turn fold of AQ is pretty marginal from a theoretical perspective. Probably I'm folding a few too many hands against an opponent who plays correctly. If I believe that conclusion then the cure is to start calling a few more hands and obviously I want those to be the best available, meaning I should call down with AQ and fold with AJ or worse.

Of course my opponent is not a theory. He's a real player and I have a read. What is right in theory needs to be adjusted for the way Villain actually likes to play. But I am making my adjustments from the correct starting point.

Having played and analyzed more hands against Villain I now realize that I probably made a bad fold. The revised read is that he bets very aggressively to steal pots but often misses value bets with weak pairs. In other words if he actually had A6 (bottom pair) for his PFR I might be getting a free card here. Accordingly he is bluffing too much compared to his value betting and I should be calling more hands than theory requires, not less hands.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very disturbing number because it looks like folding AQ may be exploitable error in the sense that it is profitable for him to risk 2 BB by autobluffing any worthless hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right that vs a player who will always checkraise the flop and bet the turn regardless of his hand that folding AQ and all worse hands would be a mistake. But as you correctly pointed out later in your post, your opponent is not a theory and you would certainly not fold AQ and all worse hands once you realized or even suspected that he was using that approach.

I think there are lots of recommendations around here to do or not do certain things because "we will get run over" or because "we will be easy to play against" that are misguided because they are based on the assumption that our opponent will both correctly assess AND correctly exploit the vulnerability of our actions. This is a leap that I am not prepared to make until the opponent proves it to me.

Until our opponent gives us reason to do otherwise, I think it is usually the best policy to take whatever action we think has the highest EV for a given situation with minimal regard to the implications that action may have on future hands. If and only if he demonstrates his ability to take appropriate countermeasures should we worry about the repercussions.

Cartman

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

pair of jacks loses to pair of aces
jack high loses to ace high

something something about hand ranges and equity %

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Stellar, I too realized that similar aspects of my game were exploitable by an aggressive player. After experimenting a good deal with calling down or playing back a bit more, I've found that usually you can pinpoint at least which players you can lighten up against. I still feel like trying to keep my game unexploitable is very important against the aggressive players, especially as I play higher.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Until our opponent gives us reason to do otherwise, I think it is usually the best policy to take whatever action we think has the highest EV for a given situation with minimal regard to the implications that action may have on future hands. If and only if he demonstrates his ability to take appropriate countermeasures should we worry about the repercussions.

Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with this.

Having said that, I'm actually reassured by all of this that I'm not making a big mistake, in general, by mucking J10s rather than 3-betting, as discussed in the OP. I think that there are certain situations when it makes sense, but I probably need to be pretty selective.

Thanks all.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
misguided because they are based on the assumption that our opponent will both correctly assess AND correctly exploit the vulnerability of our actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Villain doesn't have to assess anything or be any kind of genius. For many of these LAGs attacking tight players (or all players) comes naturally. They just do it and you either counter it properly or you don't.

The problem comes in when Hero is being exploitably weak and doesn't realize it. Suddenly the LAG has the best of it and Hero doesn't understand what is happening to him. Folding "too many" hands is fine if Villain doesn't bluff enough. It's a deliberate strategy to make extra profit by exploiting his failure to bluff.

[ QUOTE ]
Until our opponent gives us reason to do otherwise, I think it is usually the best policy to take whatever action we think has the highest EV for a given situation with minimal regard to the implications that action may have on future hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course taking the highest EV action is the best policy but that is beside the point. None of what I wrote is about future hands, only the current hand. If Villain is bluffing correctly--not excessively, but correctly--then a policy of folding too many hands will cause an immediate EV loss on the current hand.

Of course if Villain recognizes your leak he may exploit it by further increasing his bluffing. This will cause him losses if you adjust and begin calling at least the correct amount. Otherwise he devastates you.

The underlying concept is that in heads up play there is a correct amount to bluff and a correct amount to call. This is an equilibrium where neither player can exploit the other. The first player to disturb the equilibrium is going to suffer losses. But if one player insists on playing incorrectly and never adjusts then the other player can either continue playing normally and make a profit or he can can begin playing incorrectly in the opposite direction and make extra profit. For example, if Villain decides to bluff too much you can exploit him by calling too much. But if you insist on calling too much then he can exploit you by not bluffing at all.

Holdem is so complicated that figuring out exactly what is correct play is extremely difficult. But it is still important to try and think about it to create some guidelines for your play. Then you can take that guideline and adjust it for the way your opponent actually plays. This way if you are assuming that your opponent is too passive then you at least realize what you are doing and can make adjustments if it isn't working out.

The "what would happen if Villain always bluffed" question is a tool for recognizing incorrect play. If you are calling the proper amount then you should expect that he can't hurt you this way. If you are calling too much he also can't hurt you. But if the answer is that you are losing large amounts of money that obviously belongs to you then the inescapable conclusion is that you fold too much. Now you need to ask yourself why folding too much is the default play in this situation. If you have a good answer to that question then go ahead. But at least you've thought about it.

An example of a standard play for many of us that is "folding too much" is checkcall, checkcall, betfold with a moderate made hand. There is no way this is mathematically correct in many situations where it is applied. But it is definitely true that a wide range of players don't bluff raise enough in this situation. This in turn is an exploitation on their part of the fact that a wide range of players call river raises much too much. But it is still worth remembering that the betfold play is incorrect and remain wary lest you become the exploited instead of the exploiter.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Of course taking the highest EV action is the best policy but that is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this may seem like an obvious statement, I think it is a debate that we engage in every time we advocate a line that is immediately incorrect mathematically because of metagame reasons. A frequent example of this is the recommendation to peel the flop and fold unimproved on the turn even when this is immediately -EV so that we don't get run over.


[ QUOTE ]
None of what I wrote is about future hands, only the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't disagreeing with what you wrote. I was just elaborating on what I thought you correctly pointed out later in your post regarding our opponent not being a theory.


[ QUOTE ]

If Villain is bluffing correctly--not excessively, but correctly--then a policy of folding too many hands will cause an immediate EV loss on the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we can only make decisions as to which line we think has the highest immediate EV on the information available to us at the time. I am sure at the time that you folded your AQ you thought that was the decision with the highest immediate EV. Based on your estimate of the relevant factors at the time, your fold was "correct". If you later learn that he loves to checkraises the flop and bet the turn with weak draws and air, then the next time you were confronted with the same situation you would probably make a "correct" call.

Excepting tilt or some other illogical catalyst, if we are seeking only to maximize immediate EV we will always make what we estimate to be the "correct" decision at the time. It is only later that we may change our assessment of our opponent and understand that if we had only known then what we know now, we would have realized that what we thought was a "correct" decision was probably actually "incorrect".

Cartman

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course taking the highest EV action is the best policy but that is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this may seem like an obvious statement, I think it is a debate that we engage in every time we advocate a line that is immediately incorrect mathematically because of metagame reasons. A frequent example of this is the recommendation to peel the flop and fold unimproved on the turn even when this is immediately -EV so that we don't get run over.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your interpretation of this example.

It sometimes happens that I make a play with a metagame purpose. Like a humiliating sexy whose purpose is partially to instill fear and intimidate an opponent into incorrect passive play on future hands. But "metagame" is actually a code name for psychology in this case.

But the loose flop peel is something else entirely. Just as there is tension between bluffing and bluffcatching, there is also tension between loose flop calls and marginal turn bets. A flop call that is slightly -EV on paper becomes +EV when you factor in the reality that sometimes you get a free card. So mathematically correct strategy is to rely on this and make a few extra calls with the "best of the rest". Never making these calls is exploitable because it allows Villain to take too many free cards and thereby avoid paying off my better hands.

But I absolutely am not trying to change the way Villain plays. Instead I exploit whatever I see. If Villain bets the turn too much then I fold more flops, pound him with turn value checkraises, and checkcall turns I would otherwise feel the need to bet.

On the other hand if Villain is a free card addict then my loose peels multiply like rabbits because one bet buys two cards.

But against a good player I cannot sustain a strategy of exploitation because he will adjust. I make whatever "loose" peels I think is the correct number for a given flop structure and opposing hand range.

Note that I have structured the discussion around the case where Villain is autobetting the flop with position. I could just have easily written an analogous explanation of loose flop calls versus OOP autobets, versus checkraises of our autobet, versus stabs at unraised pots, or whatever. The details vary but the underlying concept is the same. There is a right amount for him to be aggressive and a right amount of loose calls. Anyone who deviates can be exploited, but if Villain is messing up in a predictable way you can adjust your own play to exploit him.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

I agree that a lot of people overvalue J10s in the SH game. Standard poker theory says that suited connectors do well in a multi-way pot, not HU. J10s is seriously dominated by most TAG's UTG, UTG+1 opening ranges and 3-betting with a hand like this will almost always get you HU in a domianted position. Easy fold every time for me.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You need to start an argument for isolating with JTs by identifying an edge you hope to exploit. For example:

1. Villain openraises 50% of his hands. Now we have reasonable hand strength.

2. Villain is weak and incapable of continuing past the turn when he fails to pair up.

3. Villain is a world champion but he believes we only 3-bet with AA-QQ.

Or whatever. But you must start with something.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% correct. if we want to close the gap we got to start with something more then "I got position". A good player is the last 1 we should 3bet.

That said, I prefer JTs over A8o or KTo in this spot, because of domination. But maybe I am overestimating JTs, its hard to estimate how much we lose when we flop 2nd pair or get outdrawn on turn or river.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

as always... the ansewr to this question is depends. you all think i am too lag,but i win a lot ,yes? whnyu dop yo uthnk that? hy do you thkn i never post. i have secrets. i will not tell ou my secrest. you need tofigure them ou ton our own. it depends. sometimes you 3bet with it. sometimes ou 3bet with trash . if you think theyu are weak. ifthey are oslidm then onlyh occasionaly. poker is a game of adapationats. you have to work it.

sometimes i start replying to a post, thnen realize i am giving too much informatoin away so i stop and delete it. there si so much 2p2 is missing... i know how to play thne tag style, you have to LEARN ALL HE STYLES. it is not even teh styole, it is the theory. YO UMUST LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS, then yu can play whatever. i can play lag, i can play tag, i can play whatever the [censored] and i will always win becaues ia dapt to the table. yo uneed to adapt. sometimes you od it, sometimes you don't. sometimes i 3-bet the turn with nothing, sometimes i do it with the nuts., it is all about understanding.

do you nderstand/

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
as always... the ansewr to this question is depends. you all think i am too lag,but i win a lot ,yes? whnyu dop yo uthnk that? hy do you thkn i never post. i have secrets. i will not tell ou my secrest. you need tofigure them ou ton our own. it depends. sometimes you 3bet with it. sometimes ou 3bet with trash . if you think theyu are weak. ifthey are oslidm then onlyh occasionaly. poker is a game of adapationats. you have to work it.

sometimes i start replying to a post, thnen realize i am giving too much informatoin away so i stop and delete it. there si so much 2p2 is missing... i know how to play thne tag style, you have to LEARN ALL HE STYLES. it is not even teh styole, it is the theory. YO UMUST LEARN THE FUNDAMENTALS, then yu can play whatever. i can play lag, i can play tag, i can play whatever the [censored] and i will always win becaues ia dapt to the table. yo uneed to adapt. sometimes you od it, sometimes you don't. sometimes i 3-bet the turn with nothing, sometimes i do it with the nuts., it is all about understanding.

do you nderstand/


[/ QUOTE ]

It took u a long time saying same thing as me and Stellar, but hey: Cheers!

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think there are lots of recommendations around here to do or not do certain things because "we will get run over" or because "we will be easy to play against" that are misguided because they are based on the assumption that our opponent will both correctly assess AND correctly exploit the vulnerability of our actions. This is a leap that I am not prepared to make until the opponent proves it to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of good posts in this thread. This is certainly true for the mid-limit SH games I have played in (10/20 + 15/30). I made the mistake you alluded to, and I have found that I am playing much better now that I have gotten back to a more ABC game. I still make situational adjustments, but instead of semifrequently taking unorthodox lines to confuse my opponents, I only rarely deviate from what I think it the most +EV line for the hand. Taking into account the situational complexity of each decision randomizes my actions enough that the typical opponent at these levels really can't get a very accurate sense of how to exploit my play.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

if you're going to make this 3-bet it is a variation play and should be treated as such.
you are not currently ahead of villain's range, and your position cannot make up for this completely. if you 3-bet this every time, a "pretty good player" will catch on.
i would like it more if you had a lower suited connector, as at least that way you are less likely to be dominated. it's not as though jack-high is winning any showdowns here.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you're going to make this 3-bet it is a variation play and should be treated as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. I probably didn't emphasize this particular "edge" in enough in setting up the hypothetical, but it really was meant to be implied.

Like I said at the outset, my "default play" against this opponent is mucking, not 3-betting (though I can imagine some tables where calling could work). But I was imagining a situation where I had set up the play by playing relatively tight and, more important, not 3-betting this particular opponent previously.

I should also admit, though, the fact that I did not mention this particular condition at the outset is probably proof of some lazy thinking. In fact, the entire situation seems representative of a certain poker stage I'm at.

I feel like I'm beginning to get to the point of intuitively sensing some edges, but not yet to the point of understanding them thoroughly enough to articulate them.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

Stellar, these last two posts were wonderfully crafted and helped bring some structure to a lot of the things that have been incoherently flying through my head for the last few months.

On the check-call, check-call, bet-fold line that you comment on. Something I just clarified in my mind today was that even if our opponent bluff raises us on the river at the perfect frequency so that he's giving us a 0 EV decision, we still need to make sure we are calling at an unexploitable frequency. We can't just say oh well either way doesn't matter I make nothing- you still really need to be calling a lot or else you're presenting your opponent a chance to bluff more profitably.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

hi kurosh,

you are the best player ever imo.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to start 3 betting with the worst hand then your opponent had better like folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

end of story.

3 betting the villain in my oppinion in this hand is a mistake. i've been calling more and more lately but i'm not positive that's correct either but i've been having good success with it lately in similar spots.

Re: 3-bet J10s against good player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've been calling more and more lately but i'm not positive that's correct either but i've been having good success with it lately in similar spots.

[/ QUOTE ]
What other hands are you cold-calling with in order to keep your opponents from pinpointing your hand here?