River bet - AK unimproved

[kross]

[ QUOTE ]
Scenario I: I 3-bet preflop and he calls. I autobet the flop.

Scenario II: I call preflop and checkraise his autobet.

Count the bets in each scenario. There is no lost value.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there IS lost value. Not on this hand, but future hands. 3-betting preflop will slow down liberal blind stealers. HPFAP says if you never play another hand again in your life, you should 3-bet less, for deception. It then goes on to say you should 3-bet more liberally, because you don't want your opponent to think, "I'm betting 2 SB to win 1.5 SB", but rather he needs to know that sometimes it will cost him more.

With your strategy, he knows you'll never reraise. He knows he has to succeed in folding the blinds about 60% of the time to show an automatic profit. By never 3-betting, you are encouraging him to continue to take shots at your blinds. Unless you're calling preflop with tons of trash, he will succeed.

So if you call preflop, he can then choose to be done with it. His steal didn't succeed, he can move on to the next hand if he didn't get a favorable flop. He always gets to see a flop on his terms, knowing he will never have to pay 3 bets to see a flop. Plus he has position on you.

You can't counter that by always check-raising the flop, because you can't. Sometimes he'll check behind. Some flops you don't want to check-raise. He now knows that you're tricky, and will check-raise many flops, so he can decide if he wants to bet or not. He gets to choose how many bets go in.

He's getting 4.5-1 on the flop, so he will continue to bet many flops, since he only has to win 25% of the time. The times that you check-fold to him (including you folding the best hand), plus the times when he flops something good, and he's getting the best of it.

He has position, and you're letting him take shots for cheap. It seems to me he's getting the best of it.

[imported_leader]

You should read the rest of this thread. Many of the points you brought up have been addressed already.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
He's getting 4.5-1 on the flop, so he will continue to bet many flops, since he only has to win 25% of the time. The times that you check-fold to him (including you folding the best hand), plus the times when he flops something good, and he's getting the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You said this right after spending two paragraphs pointing out that he could counter my strategy by frequently checking the flop through. Do you realize you've refuted yourself?

Giving free cards headsup on the flop with busted hands is terrible stealing strategy and you've done an excellent job of explaining why. I get just as many T9o, J7s, and K5s hands in the BB as the next guy. If he's going to start raining free cards on those blind defenses then I'll accept making a little less on my infrequent good hands.

If he steals with 72o, gets headsup with the BB, and flops K85r versus my AA, then he just lost 3 SB for his poor timing. There is no acceptable way for him to avoid this. He can't fold to a preflop 3-bet because he has pot odds to see the flop. He can't not bet the flop if I just call because he has ample pot odds to autobluff his bust. In each case the "cure" to losing 3 SB on this particular hand is worse than the disease. If he still insists on not betting the flop then that's just extra EV for me.

[ QUOTE ]
HPFAP says if you never play another hand again in your life, you should 3-bet less, for deception. It then goes on to say you should 3-bet more liberally, because you don't want your opponent to think, "I'm betting 2 SB to win 1.5 SB", but rather he needs to know that sometimes it will cost him more.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's important to realize that this is a psychological argument. If Villain actually understands what is happening then he will realize that the cost is the same either way and it shouldn't matter to him or affect his steal frequency.

But the preflop 3-bet is more vivid and thus has a greater deterrent effect on many players. Now I could argue that I don't really care whether my opponent is deterred or not. After all there is a proper amount that Villain should be stealing and if he exceeds that then he will lose money. I don't care if he insists on playing badly and losing his money.

However there are two rightful objections to this argument:

1. Some players don't steal enough and can be bullied into stealing even less. That is an accomplishment of aggressive 3-betting.

2. The money Villain loses by stealing with junk goes in part to the SB and any players sitting behind Villain. It's not a zero-sum battle between myself and the thief. He loses money when the SB has a good hand and clobbers him. I lose money when he drives off my trash hand instead of giving me a free ride. So his excessive steals are -EV for him but they also have the side effect of redistributing my money to the SB. Thus it can be to my advantage to intimidate him into improving his play by stealing less.

This emphasizes the importance of being able to play different ways at different times and against different people.

[Wynton]

I just want to point out one more issue that I don't think has been addressed yet.

Most presumably recognize that there is not any one strategy that is best against all opponents. Also implicit I think is that even assuming one specific type of opponent, the optimal strategy may be different depending on how long the session is.

Thus, I might be persuaded not to 3-bet AK if I know I'm playing this opponent for the next hour; but if I know I'm stopping this orbit (and won't have a continuing history against my opponent), I think it's much harder to argue against 3-betting.

This might be a trite observation, but I think it's important to ground these theoretical debates in the context of fast-changing internet tables.

[Wynton]

So many of these questions come down to interpreting the stats and reads in the OP.

My interpretation of that information is that this villain won't fold a pair, might fold AJ or worse, might actually bluff-raise the river and very possibly could be induced to bluff at the river if you check. If this interpretation is correct, I think it's better to c/r.

And I also would like to know why you didn't 3-bet pf. Isn't a big advantage of 3-betting pf the fact that you are more likely to win the pot ui without a showdown?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
My interpretation of that information is that this villain won't fold a pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't a big advantage of 3-betting pf the fact that you are more likely to win the pot ui without a showdown?

[/ QUOTE ]
Think about these quotes together and then remember that I have AK. If he folds postflop I doubt he's made a significant mistake.

[PantherZ]

I think it's important to 3-bet your monsters from the BB against blind steals, as well as some of your lesser hands. They're going to expect you to be 3-betting lighter than normal on steals, so you might as well get the most out of your premium hands. I save the deception for cases like AA in the BB against an UTG raise when everyone else folds.

why not reraise/cap preflop?

if you do this you can probably bet out the flop and he may call down or just fold later on. either way i'm betting the whole way.

[Guruman]

back to the river for a moment...

Unless this particular villain has seen you specifically checkraise a flop and lead every street without a pair, I don't think he can call you with much you beat here.

If he has a reason to think you're FOS that's one thing. If he's just a standard lag without a read on you, that river bet is probably a bad move.

I know that I would only call you down with AK, AQ, Ax[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img](which I would fold on the river), and a pp or better if I suspected you to be capable of this.

If I did not, then my range would get narrower.

I don't think I bet that river if this is my first blinds tangle with anyone trying to play poker. It may work as a value bet vs a total megafish. Anyone else has at least a pair here IMO.

[McGahee]

I really like your posts re: PF in this thread enough so that I'll probably incorporate it into my game.

What's with the river though? I want to say you're trying to fold a better hand just to be different, but that cannot be the case given the board texture. I don't like the parlay of a 47/21 player having a worse Ace and also calling with it especially when you weigh it against the times he'll bluff when you check, so I don't understand the bet unless you have a read that he'll call with most Kings.