Theory post: When is it correct to three bet flop OOP?

[Richie Rich]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of any instances in which it's correct to three-bet flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
UTG raise, two callers you call on BB with A7

456

bet, pray for a raise and push.


now do the same thing when you hold 67 or 55.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well put.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
All right Bobby...

Just to play devil's advocate here, When would you call a flop raise with the intention of raising the turn? There is constantly discussion about why three-betting the flop is a poorly play in comparison to a turn-check raise for getting more money in the middle. Why are you a clear advocate of three-betting? It makes sens to me, and I'm sure you too, that three-betting just allows worse hands to fold, thus lowering your ev on the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, just think about it: calling the raise and checking the turn will always allow your opponent to raise the flop and take a free card on the turn with a draw. If your opponents are always doing this, you should counter by 3-betting the flop when they raise. I don't understand the problem. This is system poker theory. If your hand range is sufficiently ahead of his hand range and your hand needs protection then you should bet. How do you decide when to bet in the first place? It's the exact same thing for deciding when to 3-bet.

[Maier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All right Bobby...

Just to play devil's advocate here, When would you call a flop raise with the intention of raising the turn? There is constantly discussion about why three-betting the flop is a poorly play in comparison to a turn-check raise for getting more money in the middle. Why are you a clear advocate of three-betting? It makes sens to me, and I'm sure you too, that three-betting just allows worse hands to fold, thus lowering your ev on the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, just think about it: calling the raise and checking the turn will always allow your opponent to raise the flop and take a free card on the turn with a draw. If your opponents are always doing this, you should counter by 3-betting the flop when they raise. I don't understand the problem. This is system poker theory. If your hand range is sufficiently ahead of his hand range and your hand needs protection then you should bet. How do you decide when to bet in the first place? It's the exact same thing for deciding when to 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]



IT seems that stopping-and-going when a nonflush hits, since you can't be 100 percent sure he is on a flush draw, or turn-check raising always seems to be a better alternative in cash games than 3 betting. 3-betting seems to allow your oppenants to get away from superior hands while stopping and going creates some confusion, as they need to take in account the turn card, and turn-check-raising gets more money in the middle from them when they believe they're ahead.

3-betting, with the exception of the hands fimbulwinter posted, always seems to be a worse alternative.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
3-betting, with the exception of the hands fimbulwinter posted, always seems to be a worse alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just so wrong it is painful. This is fundamental poker theory. If 3-betting allows your opponent to easily lay down made hands, as you claim, then you should 3-bet with draws or even complete air. And once he realises that you are 3-betting draws and bluffs then he won't be able to lay down made hands to your 3-bets. If he can, then it is a reason to do it more, not to do it less. I really don't understand how someone in the MH forum doesn't understand this.

[Maier]

all right worstplayer

i agree with your post althoguh I guess I was thinking about the typical, MH, unknown player who hasnt seem you three-bet before. Typically, I guess they would be inclined to release inferior holdings once you three-bet, but once they see you three-bet draws, they will clearly give you three-bets less respect. That changes things doesnt it?

However, just like any other theory post, you can make any argument given prior action or "whatever the *%$# your oppenant thinks of you". For argument purposes, lets say you're playing an unknown player with a solid understanding of the game. Then, it seems 3-betting should be made at first with big draw hands to mix it up, but 3-betting with overpairs OOP on a draw heavy board and sets seems to cut into your EV opposed to turn-check raising and stopping and going.

[Matt Flynn]

Maier asked me to respond here. I agree with what has been said about game theory, etc. Maier's point is basically about how to extract maximum value from hands when you have the made hand and you think it is best. The safest play is usually to reraise. That is not always the most profitable if they end up folding too often.

I do not have much time now. Key points:

1. You want the money in as fast as you can get it there.
2. Any slowplaying increases your risk and may also kill your ability to extract money, particularly if the draw gets there - even if your opponent has a made hand and not a draw, he now won't want to put a lot of money in.
3. You will often be in situations where you have a big hand and your opponent has a marginal hand. It is extremely useful to figure that out, because that is when you want to slow down.
4. If they always lay down to "three bets" on the flop without the near-nuts, then you should bet your draws on the flop and then come over the top on the flop when raised. You have serious fold equity and need to make use of it. Obviously if they don't raise the flop without the goods you don't go coming over the top of them. I say obviously, and yet again and again we make that "obvious" error.
5. I slowplay too much and so do you.

Matt

[Leptyne]

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...mp;o=&vc=1

As I understand it the term "stop and go" was coined here on 2+2 by Greg (FossilMan).

[Jason Strasser]

The answer here, in my view, lies with Shania as do so many answers. If you contantly 3-bet the flop OOP with a wide variety of hands it can be extremely effective. I never do it, which I think is fine. It's kinda like how I rarely check raise the river.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I never do it, which I think is fine. It's kinda like how I rarely check raise the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can either of these things possibly be fine? If you never 3-bet the flop, it removes one thing preventing people from raising your bet on the flop. That can't be a good thing. And if you never c/r the river, that removes one thing preventing people from betting the river against you. That can't be a good thing either. Why would you ever voluntarily remove any weapons from your arsenal?

[Liv Tyler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never do it, which I think is fine. It's kinda like how I rarely check raise the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can either of these things possibly be fine? Why would you ever voluntarily remove any weapons from your arsenal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's saying that reraising the flop occasionally may be worse than reraising frequently or reraising never. In order to keep your "true" flop reraises from being readable, you have to reraise with some other hands too. Reraising a lot, you get better Shania. (Hmmm. Then whatever the opposite of Shania is, that must be what you get when you never reraise the flop.)