AA, river play.

[Dave G.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the MP will call a 3-bet w/ a worse hand, but it's unlikely the BB will unless I'm losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, changing my post. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I'd probably be more inclined to 3-bet it now. You don't really want an overcall from BB if you think he could have you beat. A raise gets extra value off MP when you're a very good chance of beating him.

More importantly though, if the BB does have some crap thing like K3, he may even fold the winner. Of course, I wouldn't expect him to fold it very often, but that fact combined with the fact that we could still very well be best here and MP is giving us plenty of value means I like a 3-bet.

[Shillx]

If I just call and the BB overcalls, I still win one bet but don't re-open the action for MP.

This concept is important, but one the key points to this argument is that you might not have the best hand. I just don't see how you could have the worst hand in this spot the way it went down.

Brad

[nomadtla]

I really don't see where you misplayed it. I've been seeing this stuff all day though, did he turn over JJ or other board card with a 3 ugh. Don't second guess yourself you played it fine just call and scream he can't hear you anyways

[MrWookie47]

No way is BB folding a better hand here.

I think there's a decent chance he'll overcall for one more closing the action.

I hear what Shill's saying about you very probably having the best hand. When we hear he's a tricky player, however, does that not mean that he could be slowplaying a set to the river for maximum trickery? I guess he could also be slowplaying KK for maximum trickery as well.

I think I still like calling and going for the overcall rather than exposing ourselves to a cap.

[Dave G.]

Meh. You're probably right. I've seen some pretty bad laydowns here recently though.

If alls we're worried about is a cap from MP, then I still think 3-betting this is good. He has to have exactly JJ for us to be screwed. Most of the time he won't have it. And if BB does call the 3-bet, we aren't guaranteed to lose to him either.

[MrWookie47]

Man, minus points for me. I didn't even notice the LRR. I suck at 2+2.

That certainly increases the likelihood that he has KK or QQ, but that still doesn't rule out JJ, 88, or even 44. I think it may also increase the likelihood of a guy holding junk who's pissed that you raised him. You'll see some weird happenings from these guys.

What do you think are the relative probabilities of KK, QQ, or perhaps TT who will pay off our 3bet versus JJ, 88, 44, or an unlikely 3x who will cap us versus as stone cold bluff who won't pay off a 3bet?

[Dave G.]

Given the action so far, a big pair is the most likely hand he's on, although I've seen people pull these stunts with hands like 88 before. So if we consider all big pairs down to 88 then there are two that beat us and 4 that we beat. If you add in hands like AJ then we beat a wider range of hands that are likely to pay us off. So I'd say about 70% - 75% of the time we beat him and he pays us off. If you add 44 into the mix it worsens to about 65%, but I don't think 44 is all that likely.

If we go with 75% of the time we're good and he pays us off, and 25% we're not and he caps and we pay him off, it works out to:

.75 * 1 + .25 * (-2) = +0.25. That's just against MP though, I've no idea what BB has. If you add in the fact that BB will probably overcall one bet but not 2 unless he wins, then that probably puts the EV slightly negative (because we will win less than 75% of the time).

I keep flip flopping on this one. I think at the table I'd 3-bet this, but the more I think about it here, the more I keep changing my mind. I think it's close, and it looks like the overcall might be the way to go after examining the math more closely.

[cold_cash]

Shortly after the hand was over I felt like I made a bad play by 3-betting, but I haven't done anything concrete math wise. It just seemed like both calling and 3-betting were going to win the same amount, but 3-betting could potentially cost more if I was losing.

(Plus I love sticking it to limp re-raisers. I know that's not a good reason to raise, but it felt good when he paid it off and I got the pot.)

I guess it's close either way. Heads-up it seems like a no-brainer, but with the BB in there it kinda throws a wrench into the whole thing.

Anyway, I 3-bet, BB folded, MP called w/ TT, and MHIG.

[Dave G.]

[ QUOTE ]
(Plus I love sticking it to limp re-raisers. I know that's not a good reason to raise, but it felt good when he paid it off and I got the pot.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[MrWookie47]

I don't think there is any possible way BB has us beat. He check/called the river on the first go-round. A set that filled up or trips would have at least check/raised the river, and we beat all crappy two pairs. If he value-called his nuts the whole way, so be it.

I see you gave no precentage to him being on a bluff that won't pay us off. I think there's some percentage there. Harrington's rule is at least 10%, but since there are two players, let's see what happens if he is bluffing and won't pay us off just 5 percent of the time. Also, let's also say that BB is 75% to overcall one bet, and 0% to overcall two bets.

Calling:
.75*.75*(1) + .25*(-1) = +.31

Raising:
.70*(1) + .25*(-2) = +.2

Actually, it looks like he doesn't even need to ever bluff for calling to be the better option. I'll discount bluffing for the rest of this.

Hmm. If we solve (1-x)*.75 - x = 1-x - 2x, we find that x = .2, or that in order for raising to be the correct option, we have to be losing < 20% of the time. And, of course, if we increase the likelihood of BB overcalling one bet, that number is even smaller.

Are we winning 80% of the time here? I think it's pretty close, but I think I still like calling.