I fail to raise AKo from the BB

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the rest of the hand was played fine

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah okay whatever.

I challenge anyone to come up with a real, reasonable argument involving at least some math as to why just calling here before the flop can even be close to "fine."

[/ QUOTE ]

He's getting 16:1 on a 15:1 3-out draw. The hand is unlikely be raised behind him. Granted, if he's not drawing dead he is, at the minimum, facing redraws, but a thin flop call is acceptable.

EDIT: oops, too quick, thought you were talking about the call on the flop.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
He's getting 16:1 on a 15:1 3-out draw. The hand is unlikely be raised behind him. Granted, if he's not drawing dead he is, at the minimum, facing redraws, but a thin flop call is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree the flop call is better than folding.

I think you misunderstood my post, I was referring to preflop in my post (although in some of my later posts in this thread I have come to realize that there may be quite a bit of merit to just calling preflop--at the moment I'm not soundly convinced one way or the other, whereas before I ever opened this thread I was very soundly convinced that reraising was the only viable play).

[shant]

Let me be the first to say, "gg."

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a mistake to fold here against a strong player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... well, even if he were a strong player I probably would have still folded. I'd call against a LAG or a donk.

[SenecaJim]

River play is extremely important, not to be overlooked.

Bettin out with best hand
1. Folds worse hand -win 0
2. calls with hand worse than straight with 3 flush on board,,,hmm,well, if so, win 1 bet.
3. bluff raises, you lose 1 bet plus 13.5 more bets by folding

worse hand
1. he calls , you lose 1 bet
2. he raises, you fold and lose 1 bet (or call and 2)

checking best hand
1. he free showdowns a hand he woud have probably folded
2. induced bluff, you win 1 bet

worse hand
1. he checks behind with small flush and you lose 0
2. he bets, you call , lose 1 bet

Unless I am missing a strategm that should be uses here somemtimes, I can't figure out why or how it could be correct to bet out on this river.

I have done it when I was pretty sure no flush and was willing risk calling a raise to make a play. otherwise, I am risking the whole pot for one bet and with the best hand????

[zephed]

[ QUOTE ]
Light bulb just went off in my head lol

Your talking about a raise for everyone you DO have beat. Makes perfect sense.

I was always thinking about going in with the best hand and applying an advantage over the entire table.

Thanks, this is really interesting [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Ramming and Jamming Preflop

More than one hand makes money preflop.

[zephed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By raising you force all the others who already made a mistake by entering the pot, you force them to contribute more money to the pot, thus providing the pot with more dead money

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily a true statement. While its true they make a mistake by making their original pf call w/a less than adequate hand, when more money goes into the pot their mistake is lessened.

Example

Good player open raises utg, bad player cold calls the raise w/Q7o, 2 players call behind. You look down at AKo and 3 bet, utg calls and badplayer calls. What just traspired here is that bad player called 2 bets cold getting 3.5:2 on his call the first time around. This is clearly a mistake b/c his hand is likely more than a 3.5:2 dog in this situation and he will not play well enough post flop to recoup the losses. When the bad player has to make his next call, he's getting 12.5:1 on this hand. This is clearly a good call b/c his hand is much better than a 12.5:1 dog.

Inflating the pot pf does not necessarily exploit the greatest equity edge against our opponents in this situation. As entity pointed out, I like the ability to disguise my hand and plan my attack based on the flop strenth rather than be caught oop in a huge pot w/no way of protecting my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, when they have to call the pf 3-bet, their original mistake is worsened because they were not closing the action. When they make that pf call, they MUST be aware that someone might wake up with a big hand behind them and reraise.

You are just looking at it as individual decisions for them. You don't do that when you consider calling down from the flop do you? No, you calculate the effective odds of calling down to make your decision.

[me454555]

Our opponent thinks in individual deceisions, we don't, so therefore we're not really forcing him into a much bigger mistake by 3 betting this pf. I'm not saying to never 3 bet this pf b/c he's not making a mistake. I'm simply saying that in this situation it might be advantageous for us to not exploit a small egde pf and instead focus on exploiting a larger one postflop.

The other advantage of calling here is that we can manipulate the size of the pot better and we have more options postflop when the flop hits or misses us. We know the pot will be big this hand and I think that by not 3 betting here, we may be able to maximize our chances of taking the pot down in the long run or even making more money on our hand postflop.

[zephed]

[ QUOTE ]
Our opponent thinks in individual deceisions, we don't, so therefore we're not really forcing him into a much bigger mistake by 3 betting this pf. I'm not saying to never 3 bet this pf b/c he's not making a mistake. I'm simply saying that in this situation it might be advantageous for us to not exploit a small egde pf and instead focus on exploiting a larger one postflop.

The other advantage of calling here is that we can manipulate the size of the pot better and we have more options postflop when the flop hits or misses us. We know the pot will be big this hand and I think that by not 3 betting here, we may be able to maximize our chances of taking the pot down in the long run or even making more money on our hand postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Getting 3-bets in pf with AK and a bunch of crappy hands is NOT little mistakes for them, sorry. It is a HUGE pf edge. It's really frustrating to me why you don't see this. It doesn't matter that they get better odds with each successive call.

Let's take a NL cash game as an example.

Preflop: UTG raises 10xBB, folded to you in the BB with AA. UTG has 5xBB left. Do we wait till the flop to put him all-in because pf he is getting greater than 4:1 on his call? No!
Just put him all in, his final pf all-in call will end up being profitable because he subsidized most of it with his original raise. Just like the fish is subsidizing his second pf call with his first loose pf call. It's bad money on top of bad money.

At the end of the day, the amount of money you make when they call you is the total of how much they put in and with how much equity. If you had a colluding partner at the table and there was unlimited raising pf, you should go to the felt even though every call that fish makes he is getting better odds.

[zephed]

[ QUOTE ]

The other advantage of calling here is that we can manipulate the size of the pot better and we have more options postflop when the flop hits or misses us. We know the pot will be big this hand and I think that by not 3 betting here, we may be able to maximize our chances of taking the pot down in the long run or even making more money on our hand postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see one extensive analysis of potsize manipulation, if it's out there I have missed it.

The problem I have with most of these arguments is they focus on one type of flop. You can't just say, well with x and y sort of flop it will be much more profitable. The flop comes down all different ways, and you have to take them ALL into account. The EV of one line has to be better when you average all possible outcomes.

I'm open-minded though, so go ahead and persuade me.