[Snoogins47]

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.