I finally got to 3bet 98s !!!

DcifrThs · #1 06-17-2005, 02:31 AM

there was a thread a while ago about putting in 3 or 4 bets pf voluntarily w/ a hand like j9s 7 or 8 ways.

so i tried it.

party 30/60 loose game. 3 limpers to me 1 fold and i call 9h8h guy to my left raises and it ended up 7 or 8 way action back to me. i 3bet figuring worst case if he caps then we'll get maybe 1 fold possibly 2 but who can resist this pot??

so he caps 1 person folds everybody else calls. a billion bets in the pot and long story short i win an insane pot w/ a flush on the river after a flop of KdQh3h went like 3 bets 5 ways...*downswing officially over*

my question and the reason for this post is that i would have and have always 100% simply called in that spot.

my understanding of implied odds is that you want to keep the ability to draw cheap so you can get paid in big bets later thus increasing your effective odds by counting the implied ones.

however, pot equity comes into play here b'c 98s is a hand that will win more than its fair share vs. 7 people putting in 4 bets so from a pot equity standpoint it looks like a good investment (its gotta be good more than 16.667% of the time right?)

therefore, the equity outweighs the implied odds concept...right?

thoughts?

-Barron

SinCityGuy · #2 06-17-2005, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
however, pot equity comes into play here b'c 98s is a hand that will win more than its fair share vs. 7 people putting in 4 bets so from a pot equity standpoint it looks like a good investment (its gotta be good more than 16.667% of the time right?)

therefore, the equity outweighs the implied odds concept...right?

thoughts?

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not quite that simple, because pot equity calculations are based on all hands at showdown, without regard to how much pressure you have to withstand throughout the hand.

The dynamic of having a lot of pressure put on with flop and turn raises is more directly related to implied odds. Having said that, you have a hand that plays very well in multiway pots, so I don't think it is much of a mistake at all to 3-bet it as you did.

haakee · #3 06-17-2005, 02:58 AM

Most of the hands he's going to win a showdown with are hands that he's going to get to the showdown here with 184050 bets in the pot before the flop. He's staying in with a 2-pair draw or a gutshot here in most scenarios.

DcifrThs · #4 06-17-2005, 03:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, pot equity comes into play here b'c 98s is a hand that will win more than its fair share vs. 7 people putting in 4 bets so from a pot equity standpoint it looks like a good investment (its gotta be good more than 16.667% of the time right?)

therefore, the equity outweighs the implied odds concept...right?

thoughts?

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not quite that simple, because pot equity calculations are based on all hands at showdown, without regard to how much pressure you have to withstand throughout the hand.

The dynamic of having a lot of pressure put on with flop and turn raises is more directly related to implied odds. Having said that, you have a hand that plays very well in multiway pots, so I don't think it is much of a mistake at all to 3-bet it as you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...well then it appears to be a combination of the two...but the thing is, every $ you put in the pot when its that many to a flop is profitable the times yo flop a big draw like i did, i it was bet and raised to me on the flop i cold called and the pf capper 3 bet and it was called back to me and i capped b/c i was NOW getting plenty of overlay.

also there's other flops that you have to continue on w/ that will cost dearly and you still lose.

im having a hard time understanding the calculation of taking into acct these two concepts, how they interelate and culminate in the determination of whether its 'correct' to 3bet like i did.

id love for ray or mason or david to chime in and relay their thoughts.

-Barron

Danielih · #5 06-17-2005, 06:15 AM

I like it. In higher limit games, in holdem as well as other games you need to raise and 3bet with wider ranges of hands to disguise what you have. Then take a hand in position with an equity edge, giddyup.

jomatty · #6 06-17-2005, 06:47 AM

interesting post. i almost never make plays like you describe and i fluctuate from thinking what im doing is standard to thinking it may be a leak of mine. while its not something i usually do in the heat of battle, its hard for me to think it could be wrong in the scenario you layed out (especially considering image considerations)
i imagine that regularly making these sorts of plays (as long as you only do so in situations like these) and never making them would make little difference but when you add image considerations into the equation(and the fact that theyre fun to make) and its prob something i should have in my arsenal.

spamuell · #7 06-17-2005, 11:59 AM

Well I've just spent some time searching the archives because I remember stuff about this a while ago.

There is a hand on p266 of Carson's Complete Book of Hold'em Poker where there is a player who has 97s on the button, 5 players limp to him, he limps, sb folds, BB raises and Carson says the play is to 3-bet.

According to Ed Miller (in Jan 2004):

[ QUOTE ]

Gary Carson is dead wrong about the 97s hand.

This limp-reraise is generally bad poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

link

If it's not profitable from the button, I don't see it being profitable from the SB.

It looks like Ed is saying that in this situation, implied odds are more important than a small amount of positive pot equity you might have pre-flop.

InfernoLL · #8 06-17-2005, 12:07 PM

He wasn't in the small blind. Also, having an 8-9 way pot w/ 98s is considerably better than a 6 way pot w/ 97s. The difference I would imagine is very significant, and it might change from positive to negative expectation here.

DcifrThs · #9 06-17-2005, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He wasn't in the small blind. Also, having an 8-9 way pot w/ 98s is considerably better than a 6 way pot w/ 97s. The difference I would imagine is very significant, and it might change from positive to negative expectation here.

[/ QUOTE ]

eds book was written about IDIOTS (they dont need a big pot inducement to stay to the end)!!! im playing 30/60 with people who have some standards and also i wouldn't raise 97s from the button either...but if i called and the sb raised the bb called and all called back to me id 3 bet it now.

-Barron

andyfox · #10 06-17-2005, 12:11 PM

The three exclamation points baffle me a bit: I guess I don't understand the thrill of 3-betting the field with 9-high without the button.

Doesn't one have to consider not just how often 9h-8h will win the pot against 7/8 opponents, but also how much one will win or lose? I'd rather load the pot after I flop 7h-6c-2h than before I flop Ad-Qs-Ts.