Is it worth it to draw????

[runa]

If we were to assume that the SB's raising standards are not overly loose we might put him on a range AA-TT, AK. That would give:

3 AA, 1 KK, 6 AK for you to be drawing dead.
3 QQ, 3 JJ, 6 TT to give you bd flush and gshot straight FTW.

5.5 outs with 45% chance of drawing dead, I'd say its probably a fold. I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't 3-bet PF, perhaps he's a loose raiser, or you were in steal position and thus maybe there's some chance he's on a re-steal which would open up the range of hands he's playing, but here it seems ok to drop it on the flop.

If the situation were different and perhaps you had a read that would give you the equity to continue, then I think the turn card helped somewhat, giving you now 13 outs FTW and calling with 6.5:1 seems easy. Thoughts?

[CallMeIshmael]

MP3 isnt the button, but he is getting to steal territory.

Add to this that solid players are 3-betting far more often than calling here, and I think your 3-betting standards are too tight.

[runa]

Starting with no read do we assume they are solid? I agree that solid 3-betting standards are generally looser than my original statement, but there are also tons of passive preflop folks who only 3-bet with premium hands. What would be a good average range of hands we can put the villain on since its not a pure steal situation, and we seem to have no help in the VPIP, PFR read department?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Starting with no read do we assume they are solid? I agree that solid 3-betting standards are generally looser than my original statement, but there are also tons of passive preflop folks who only 3-bet with premium hands. What would be a good average range of hands we can put the villain on since its not a pure steal situation, and we seem to have no help in the VPIP, PFR read department?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at it from sort of a math perspective..

Lets say all hands are ranked from 1 to 100.

Lets say a solid's typical 3-betting hands = 95-100. (roughly 5% of hands, note: this assumes not a blind steal type situation, but normal 3-betting).

A fish's typical 3-betting hands are the same.

A LAGs 3 betting hands are maybe: 90-100.

A maniac's are 80-100.

A LP are like: 98-100.

So, the exact expected number of a typical 3-bet from an unknown =

(frquency of solid)*97.5 + (frquency of fish)*97.5 + (frquency of LAG)*95 + (frquency of maniac)*90 +
(frequency of LP)*99.

In this situation, really, only a solids change, because most of the others dont understand the idea of 3-betting to isolate, or that MP3 might be raising weakly. Lets say a solids 3-betting now equals a maniacs (20% of hands)

So, the new number is smaller than the old number, with the difference being:

(frquency of solid)*97.5 - (frquency of solid)*90.

It all depends on how frequently you expect a solid in your game.

So, its erroneous to assume that the 3-betting range changes to what ours does, because for many it doesnt. But, it is also erroneous to assume that it doesnt change at all.

[runa]

I agree with you here, but I suppose from my brief experiences at low limits the frequency of solids and maniacs are on the fringe, and a much higher frequency of the time a 3-bet is for value and not a re-steal. I agree that a good average estimate is probably somewhat looser than strictly premium, but I suppose that's why I'm asking. It sounds like a fairly difficult intial premise to define, and obviously much easier with real PT stats to work with. Nice analysis.

It probably is very likely that the flop call is probably close if not slightly profitable, and its pretty straightforward from this turn card on. Unfortunately as munga mentioned, the nature of the situation does mean that you have low implied odds for the times you do hit since you can't confidently guarantee or push a made hand every time, and that often (in other situations) turns a closer or even nearly unprofitable call into a clear call instead.