hypothetical overpair situation

[admiralfluff]

Villain is not terribly loose, and is a tricky-aggressive player, may be loose or tight preflop.

hero gets QQ in the CO.

preflop:
villain opens form MP, hero 3 bets, others fold, villain caps, hero calls.

flop:
8 4 2
villain bets, hero raises, villain reraises, hero calls.

turn play depends on turn card (not raising an A if bet into), preflop reads on villain, and more specific postflop reads on villain. Anyone use this commonly? Against a tricky and non-maniacal player, I think calling the flop rather than capping is always correct.

who's with me.

[admiralfluff]

No repliese, so people either don't know what I'm talking about, or don't care. Either way, I'll bump and explain myself.

This thought stems from the correct line when you are out of position, and your opponent caps the turn. You should checkraise or check/call the river, rather than bet, so that you put in proportionally more bets when ahead than when behind (2:3 as opposed to 1:2).

I fell like this same thinking should work for this type of situation on the flop/turn play. When your tricky opponent has AA or KK, he will lead the turn after you call the flop 3 bet. When you raise, he may 3 bet, but will often call down if behind. This gives you 2bets:3bets (ahead:behind). If you cap the flop, you will often be checkraised on the turn by a better hand, and a worse hand will call down. This gives you 1.5:2.5 for ahead:behind.

This situation is clearly not identical to the capped turn situation, as here your opponent could have a reasonably strong draw (AK with flush or bd flush draw).

Just a thought - hope someone else besides me finds it somewhat useful or even mildly interesting.

[admiralfluff]

I did some more thinking, and have revised my hypothesis.

If villain is a tricky and aggressive LAG, or somewhat overagg TAG, it is HU on the flop, and you have a good made hand IP:

when villain 3 bets the flop, it is generally correct for you to call rather than cap, planning on calling down or raising the turn.

the main exception is if you are considering taking a free turn card.

Again, I think this is true because it is better to be bet/3bet by a LAG on the turn, than it is to be checkraised. This only holds if the 3 bet doesn't mean you are creamed so often that a calldown is unprofitable. against a LAG or overagg this shouldn't be a problem too often.

Like any other poker axiom (e.g. clarkmeister's theorum), if your opponent is observant and knows this is your strategy, it is exploitable.

I would love for someone to explain why I am wrong.

[ArturiusX]

Because sometimes opponents 3-bet with worse hands?

[admiralfluff]

If they are aggrssive, they are more likely to continue on the turn than not when 3 betting with a worse hand, so I think there is more value in calling the 3 bet and waiting till the turn to raise.

Some other exceptions are against maniacs or dokaddicts, where they will often keep firing with nothing regardless of what you do, and when you think there is a reasonable chance villain will make an INCORRECT turn check/fold if you cap the flop.

[whodaman]

umm given the fact he capped you and than 3 bet you on the flop, i wouldn't be raising the turn unless i had sometype of read.
Verse opponents i know i might wait till the turn to raise if he is a LAG. I just hate getting 3 bet on the turn and having to call 2 more to get to showdown with a hand that is very unlikely to be good.
Verse opponents we know more i like raising the turn a lot because we may be able to fold their 3 bet if their passive.
Most of this is opponent dependent

[admiralfluff]

This is just my point. If the villain is aggro enough that a calldown after a 3 bet is correct, it should be theoretically better for us to calldown a bet/3bet on the turn than a c/r. This relies on the assumption (which may be very incorrect) that villains hand range when he bet/3bets the turn is similar to his range when he c/rs the turn after we cap.