My name's Sting, and I have weak tight disease . . .

One could argue this is why you should only call...

Obviously if he played KK this badly he might pay off, but if he has a shred of ability at anything card-related he'd know not to call your river 3-bet.

[rikz]

It's an unraised pot that appears to have hit no body very hard until the river, so 46 is a possibility that can't be ignored.

I would call the $15 and expect to win 80% of the time.

[-Skeme-]

Easy 3-bet, I don't know about push.

[Kirkrrr]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you think he'll call your huge overbet, definitely push.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what I don't like about that line of reasoning. Why on earth would he call a huge overbet in an unraised pot when against a player that just woke up with a hand all of a sudden? There isn't that many possibilities on that board for a payoff. A4, 46, and perhaps one or two realistic sets. A huge overbet in that spot just isn't getting called by a worse hand nearly often enough to justify itself.

Kirk

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
One could argue this is why you should only call...

Obviously if he played KK this badly he might pay off, but if he has a shred of ability at anything card-related he'd know not to call your river 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you contemplate a call? If villain will fold to a 3 bet/push, you still win the same amount. You have to be raising here.

If villain somehow has the nuts, then I pay him off and add him to my buddy list.

You have 2nd nuts on a board that has seen zero action. Your hand is good here over 90% of the time. Calling this board is the definition of weak-tight.

[ QUOTE ]
How can you contemplate a call? If villain will fold to a 3 bet/push, you still win the same amount. You have to be raising here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know he folds worse hands, raising is very bad.

[ QUOTE ]
If villain somehow has the nuts, then I pay him off and add him to my buddy list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because he check-raised when he hit the nuts?

[ QUOTE ]
You have 2nd nuts on a board that has seen zero action. Your hand is good here over 90% of the time. Calling this board is the definition of weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opponent dependent. Against most, I agree with 3-bet.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you contemplate a call? If villain will fold to a 3 bet/push, you still win the same amount. You have to be raising here.

If you know he folds worse hands, raising is very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't know he folds with worse hands. OP does say villain is 8/0/1 rock. We have a monster hand and should get as much $$$ out of villain as possible.

I agree that there is room for debate on a three bet vs a push, but if villain 4 bets aren't you calling anyway?

Answer this: Suppose the identical betting patterns except hero has quad 2's which can only be beat by a straight flush. Would you still advocate a call. This situation is not much different. Villain will call many worse hands in both situations.


[ QUOTE ]
If villain somehow has the nuts, then I pay him off and add him to my buddy list.

Just because he check-raised when he hit the nuts?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you advocate calling every check raise when you only hold the 2nd nuts on unpaired no-flush board? If the board were paired or Broadway cards were out then maybe I see your point, but worrying about the 4 6 is just leaving money on the table.

I play a lot of NL 100. Pushing and getting paid in this spot is pretty standard. Maybe I am just more aggressive than most [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't know he folds with worse hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, that's why I like a 3-bet.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If villain somehow has the nuts, then I pay him off and add him to my buddy list.

Just because he check-raised when he hit the nuts?



[/ QUOTE ] So you advocate calling every check raise when you only hold the 2nd nuts on unpaired no-flush board?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just commenting on your buddy-list skills. I don't think if he had 64 and check-raised the river it necessarily means he's buddy list material.

[4_2_it]

Your are correct to critize my buddy list comment. I agree that Villain in the sb is correct to complete with any too.

I think our only disagreement (and it is minor) is on how to extract maximium value from the situation. I enjoyed the debate.