HU against stinkypetes

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

after further thought, i think my 75% figure is even too low, so you'd have to be ridiculously confident in your read.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, forget trying to put a number on that. it's pointless, since you don't want to 3-bet against most hands you're ahead of anyway. i can't think of a hand you gain anything against with a 3-bet other than a worse 8, and it's unlikely that i wouldn't raise the flop with a worse 8.

if i'm on a draw like the one i had, your 3-bet causes you to lose more when you lose, and it gains you nothing most of the time when you win because i'll bluff the river anyway. so really, it costs you a bet when you lose and gains you none when you win.

i'd like to see a list of hands that you can put me on that your 3-bet is profitable against by a significant margin. i'm having a really hard time coming up with them. the best i've come up with is a draw that makes a pair below eights on the river... and that doesn't happen very often.

[/ QUOTE ]


Really, I think you will call down with any pair on that board. This includes worse 8s and all lower pairs and pocket pairs lower than 8.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

Really, I think you will call down with any pair on that board. This includes worse 8s and all lower pairs and pocket pairs lower than 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

i raise the flop with all of those hands nearly all the time, if i'm going to be putting in a raise at all. worse eights are the only hands i might wait until the turn to raise occasionally. i'd rarely raise a worse pair on the turn, and i definitely wouldnt be calling a 3-bet without some kind of significant draw to go along with it.

there's just no way i raise a worse pair here often enough to make that 3-bet correct.

also, i edited my previous post.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd rarely raise a worse pair on the turn, and i definitely wouldnt be calling a 3-bet without some kind of significant draw to go along with it.

[/ QUOTE ]


ok i DEFINITELY disagree with this statement. i can find examples in our HU hands if you want (but the damn site just started showing mucked cards 2 days ago [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] )

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'd rarely raise a worse pair on the turn, and i definitely wouldnt be calling a 3-bet without some kind of significant draw to go along with it.

[/ QUOTE ]


ok i DEFINITELY disagree with this statement. i can find examples in our HU hands if you want (but the damn site just started showing mucked cards 2 days ago [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] )

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to see them.

i'll admit that the way i play in practice often differs from the way that i think i play. (because i play too fast and don't think things through, or because i'm distracted, or because i'm on some sort of tilt)

[TheMetetron]

I don't like it either.

Surf is pretty spot on with his reasoning.

[wonkadaddy]

i don't like it either. it's not even close in my eyes.

you cost urself 2+ bets when ur behind/drawn out on and win either 1 bet or zero bets when ahead (especially if you consider the gutshots scare cards that'll keep you from betting)

another huuuge factor already pointed out is
you also lose any potential bluff inducing equity if you check the river (as stinky isn't bluffing after ur turn 3 bet). if you had position so you could better control the river action the play has more merit, but is still a loser IMO.

[oreogod]

EDIT: made image EVEN better

[Surfbullet]

omfg that is hilarious.

Surf

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
omfg that is hilarious.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

Here is the latest one (gets rid of all the text overlap on grimlock) Pasting it as a link so ppl dont have to reload it.

newest image link