QQ - the right amount of aggression? - Page 4

aces_dad · #31 10-07-2005, 06:49 PM

nh Boz, doesn't get much better than having Shillx say you played a hand perfectly.

Shillx · #32 10-07-2005, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to elaborate right now, but the villian played his kings perfectly. If he gets into a war with them, he is going to look at either AA or JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to frame this and put it on my wall. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you had the kings...I knew it!

bozlax · #33 10-07-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to elaborate right now, but the villian played his kings perfectly. If he gets into a war with them, he is going to look at either AA or JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to frame this and put it on my wall. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you had the kings...I knew it!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't fool you, Brad.

Student Caine · #34 10-07-2005, 07:14 PM

I don't see where you would do anything differently here:

Preflop: QQ is a premium holding and I don't see why we would not 3-bet this.

Something that I have noticed about - and this could be selective memory - but at the Party .50/1.00 if someone 3-bets it is very likely that they have AA or KK. If they cap, they could have damn near any decent hand, including any PP or a suited Ace (Mr. Miller has a really good thread in which he talks about why people cap preflop and one of the reasons is "They like to exclaim "Cappucino!"). Obviously we need to be cognizant of the cap here but we can't look too much into it.

Flop: So we have an overpair, here is the only tough thing, if we gave Villain credit for a strong hand pre-flop then we are not in really great shape here for the following reasons:

AA has us dominated
KK has us dominated
JJ hit a set

We are ahead of AK and TT. I guess it comes down to what we really think he is holding. But the act that he does not cap the flop I have to think that we aren't in terrible shape here.

Turn: I think that we have to continue the aggression here.

River: I think that we have to continue the aggression here and I would do so if I were in the hand.

So I figure that the fact that you are posting here probably means he had AA or KK (he would have pushed JJ harder I think). But here is what you need to consider, if he had AA or KK then you really only paid one extra SB to see the showdown (unless you have a good enough read to fold an overpair in this situation). If you had simply called rather than 3-bet the flop he would have most likely bet the turn and river when you checked to him. I think that the times you make an extra SB against an overplayed AK or flush draw here make up for the few times that he has AA or KK.

Also, your 3-bet on the flop pushed out UTG. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing haha. The pot is fairly large when he makes his exit, so unless he has absolutely nothing (no pair, gutshot, etc.) he probably made a mistake.

bozlax · #35 10-07-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Something that I have noticed about - and this could be selective memory - but at the Party .50/1.00 if someone 3-bets it is very likely that they have AA or KK. If they cap, they could have damn near any decent hand, including any PP or a suited Ace (Mr. Miller has a really good thread in which he talks about why people cap preflop and one of the reasons is "They like to exclaim "Cappucino!"). Obviously we need to be cognizant of the cap here but we can't look too much into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're actually claiming that .5/1 players will cap with worse hands than they will 3-bet with, Caine, you need some serious help with your hand-reading. (Not for nothing, but yelling "cappucino" in a live game is far, far different from typing it into a chat box. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img])

Student Caine · #36 10-07-2005, 07:34 PM

Interesting...I did not think of it this way at all...so is this line that we are taking basically a WA/WB line?

Student Caine · #37 10-07-2005, 07:43 PM

Like I said, it could very well be selective memory, but I honestly see more caps with hands like AXs then I see people 3-betting with AXs. It doesn't mean that I totally discount his cap as a strong hand, it means that I don't instantly say "He capped so he has AA or KK, period." In these types of situations I am cognizant of the cap, but I wait to see how he plays postflop before I narrow the hand range down too far.

And I will be the first to tell you that I need help with hand reading haha. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Heck, it's threads like this that make me realize just how much I really have to learn about this game because I would have botched both sides of this hand:

If I were "Villain" I would have capped the flop or raised the Turn.

If I were "Hero" I would have bet out like the Hero did.

Shillx · #38 10-12-2005, 01:33 AM

Here is what I'm finding...

QQ has about 42% equity against JJ+ and AK on this board. QQ has 15% against all hands that will raise the flop (JJ+ and AK [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]). So again he has to calldown in all cases except when exactly one more [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] comes (since he is now only ahead of the case QQ).

Your KK has about 42% equity against JJ+ and AK [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] so it really doesn't make sense for you to get aggressive anywhere. If you can put him on AA/KK/JJ/AK [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] after the flop 3-bet, you have 15% equity and have odds to calldown.

So the villian should have check/folded the river the way it went down. He can't even beat a frisky TT anymore. All he can hope for is a chop chop, and that won't happen enough to warrent a call.

Brad