3-bet J10s against good player?

If you're going to start 3 betting with the worst hand then your opponent had better like folding.

[Victor]

i fold here.

[cartman]

Hi Wynton,

I think you can be very conservative with your preflop 3-betting and do just fine. These games are very loose and that means for the most part you would be well advised to only 3-bet when you have some showdown value. I suspect that you wouldn't be going far (if any) wrong if you never 3-bet with less than K high unless the game is very shorthanded or the raiser folds very easily postflop. You can probably find that type of opponent with about the same frequency as you find an albino tiger.

Cartman

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
3-betting JTs here is spitting on the gap principle. You cannot do that against a good opponent and expect a happy ending. Only if Villain is really weak can you make up your inferior hand with fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the key question. Cartman commented, "These games are very loose and that means for the most part you would be well advised to only 3-bet when you have some showdown value."

Yet, earlier I mentioned that I was talking about an opponent who didn't inevitably go to SD (which is kind of one think I assumed was implied when we talked about TAGs).

So, if villain is capable of laying down the hand, do we really need sd value to 3-bet?

Can math help here? I'm not capable of the analysis, but I think there are the analytical steps:

(1) Figure out TAG's initial raising range, presumably AA-77, AK-A10 (or down to A7s), KQ, KJ, QJ, etc,
(2) Figure out chances that he'll have a pair on the flop (including the times that he had a pocket pair).
(3) Of that number, consider the times that there will be 2 or more overcards to his pair, in which case this particular villain presumably will lay the hand down before sd (again, this assumes also that hero's image is not over the top aggressive).
(4) Account for how often villain will continue on draw.
(5) Account for times we'll hit the flop and win extra bets by having some element of disguise.

I'm too stupid to calculate all of this, but if someone else is capable, I'd appreciate it.

The bottom line question for me is whether villain will miss the flop (and perhaps turn) often enough so that we don't need SD value?

Your position on the raiser closes the gap as well. I think this play has potential to be +ev in the long run. The blinds are a big factor and your opponent's post-flop play is also a big factor.

I forgot about the button who is perhaps a bigger factor. I don't like this play from the co.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot about the button who is perhaps a bigger factor. I don't like this play from the co.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specified in my example that 3-betting at this table will basically ensure that the hand is HU.

How could you ensure it? The button, small blind, and big blind could wake up to QQ, KK, AA, or AK. Each of them has almost a 2% chance of being dealt one of those hands.

I think the play is a very close one. I would guess that it might be +ev from the button if certain conditions are met but from the co, I'm guessing it's -ev. JTs plays well against AK, AQ, KQ and medium pocket pairs. You are in big trouble if you're up against AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AJ, KJ, KT, QJ or QT. The question is whether your position and the additional blind money can compensate for all those hands where you are dominated. You have to to take into account that the button/sb/bb could call or raise no matter how unlikely you may think it is. Your opponent's level of post-flop play is going to play a role as well.

This is a play I'd much prefer to make against a very aggressive player or a tilting player w/ a tight button and blinds behind me.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, earlier I mentioned that I was talking about an opponent who didn't inevitably go to SD (which is kind of one think I assumed was implied when we talked about TAGs).

[/ QUOTE ]
You can do all the analysis you want but it will not make the gap principle go away. 3-betting a hand that is at the absolute bottom of Villain's range is mathematically unsound.

It all comes down to this: if Villain folds so much that you can profitably ignore the gap principle, then Villain is not a good player in this situation. We call them "good players" because they don't give away their money.

You need to start an argument for isolating with JTs by identifying an edge you hope to exploit. For example:

1. Villain openraises 50% of his hands. Now we have reasonable hand strength.

2. Villain is weak and incapable of continuing past the turn when he fails to pair up.

3. Villain is a world champion but he believes we only 3-bet with AA-QQ.

Or whatever. But you must start with something.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

It all comes down to this: if Villain folds so much that you can profitably ignore the gap principle, then Villain is not a good player in this situation. We call them "good players" because they don't give away their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Villain is weak and incapable of continuing past the turn when he fails to pair up.

[/ QUOTE ]

These remarks suggest to me that maybe I'm projecting my own weakness. Putting myself in villain's spot: if I open-raise with AJ and get 3-bet by someone who doesn't seem unusuall aggressive - and who has not made a habit of 3-betting me before - then I am not going to SD unimproved. Indeed, I think that there are many boards where I won't even see the river.

Are you suggesting that this is too weak?