Playing suited connectors

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your math is that you've mixed up value betting/raising and calling. When you determine if a call is +EV, you use the size of the pot, not the bets going in on that street. Hence, you would not ever be making a "near neutral EV call" at any point in this hand. There are some other factors too, but this one is the most critical IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Good point.

However, the case is still the same.
The difference is, with 4 people still in, I have the option to value RAISE the turn. Rather than just making a +EV call.

[SlantNGo]

How often does SB 3-bet here? We have no idea SB is going to 3-bet, and we have POOR relative position because MP2 is the aggressor, so if we raise the turn, we knock out the rest of the field. If we know SB will 3-bet then of course we call then cap, but why will SB 3-bet? We don't even know that BB would 3-bet.

[ QUOTE ]
How often does SB 3-bet here? We have no idea SB is going to 3-bet, and we have POOR relative position because MP2 is the aggressor, so if we raise the turn, we knock out the rest of the field. If we know SB will 3-bet then of course we call then cap, but why will SB 3-bet? We don't even know that BB would 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two separate situations here.
1. The original choice to 3 bet.
2. The choice to cap, when SB check\3bets.

In choice 1.

I think SB, BB and MP2 are way more likely to fold than raise, or call, for that matter. So what hands that we can, are we trying to knock them off of? For every person we knock out, our edge reduces. AND we stand to leave ourselves with crappy position to the raiser when we make our hand.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT <font color="blue">
Because this hand does not improve by knocking people out:</font>

ie. 54% equity stays the same.
4 villians 34%edge
3 villians 30%edge
2 villians 21%edge
HU 4%edge

This only stands to magnify losses when you knock people out with a hand like this. Because <font color="red"> you are losing money on bets that are ALREADY IN THE POT </font>as well as revenue lost from those that you knocked out.
<font color="purple">
You only want to knock people out, when doing so INCREASES your equity.
</font>
Choice 2. We DO have perfect position on the aggressor.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
I think SB, BB and MP2 are way more likely to fold than raise, or call, for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

What it boils down to is, what leads you to this conclusion? The only read we have is that they're loose, and of varying level of postflop aggression. Why do you think it so likely they'll fold, after they've already contributed to the pot? My experience tells me that players rarely bet-fold the flop at micros, regardless of the action.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think SB, BB and MP2 are way more likely to fold than raise, or call, for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

What it boils down to is, what leads you to this conclusion? The only read we have is that they're loose, and of varying level of postflop aggression. Why do you think it so likely they'll fold, after they've already contributed to the pot? My experience tells me that players rarely bet-fold the flop at micros, regardless of the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, they are only making two decisions, the wright one or the wrong one.

If they happen to make the wright one by staying in with the bigger flush draw....then Hero made the wrong move to raise. Because his flush outs are now dead and he only has 6 str8 outs to draw to ~24% equity + reverse implied on the flush.
If they're making the wrong decision - they've got a weak hand. In which case, they are more likely to stay for only 1BB.

But I do agree, at some micro tables, the muppets are calling no matter what you do.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you are villian facing 2 back to you without a flush or str8 draw, what do YOU do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I look at the pot and the board, figure that somebody's pumping a draw, check to make sure the pot odds are right for me to draw to whatever I'm drawing to and continue or not. If I've got 6 outs, though (UI overcards), I'm continuing, since the only hand that somebody made on this board that I'm worried about is a set, and I have to see more evidence than this of a set.

[ QUOTE ]
I make it up when it DOESN'T kill my action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take the same guy with UI overcards. You have to see a draw-heavy board. Are you betting out again when a card that completes one of the draws falls?

The problem with this is that you are counting on somebody else to take the initiative to give you the opportunity to make your play. If you go to war on the flop, you are making your play for yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
When you make your hand and the aggressor bets out on the turn, you stand to make an extra ~85% of a possible 8BB. You can see how infrequently this line has to be correct to be more profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't argue with your numbers...hell, I'm not even going to bother checking them. But your thinking is still dependent on someone acting for you...not only someone, in fact, everyone. I can't count the number of times I've seen a capped flop where half the field bailed out for one on the turn.

Your numbers are all right, but you're depending too much on other people to bet in a manner that benefits your play, IMO.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
If they happen to make the wright one by staying in with the bigger flush draw....then Hero made the wrong move to raise. Because his flush outs are now dead and he only has 6 str8 outs to draw to ~24% equity + reverse implied on the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making right and wrong waaaaay too narrow. Villan is right to continue with any currently made hand, or any straight or flush draw, in a pot this size; UI overcards wouldn't be too wrong to continue, although they're drawing mighty thin.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they happen to make the wright one by staying in with the bigger flush draw....then Hero made the wrong move to raise. Because his flush outs are now dead and he only has 6 str8 outs to draw to ~24% equity + reverse implied on the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making right and wrong waaaaay too narrow. Villan is right to continue with any currently made hand, or any straight or flush draw, in a pot this size; UI overcards wouldn't be too wrong to continue, although they're drawing mighty thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot is only 11sb when it reaches Hero.

Another very important factor in this hand.

If Hero 3bets.
SB is getting 3.5:1 (and failing his 'out of the rectum' check\3bet) he folds 99/100
When SB folds.
BB gets 7:1 on continuing. It's not a matter of 'overcards aren't too wrong in calling', it's more a matter that you WANT them calling and not giving them a difficult decision.

This probably argues pretty strongly for a preflop raise. It makes the decision for crappy hands to continue that much easier.


When SB does 3 bet. Assuming all of your outs are super squeaky clean, you have a 34% edge. HUGE. agreed. Should we cap?

Is 34% of the exta 4sb or 1.36sb worth it now you have fantastic position?

IMO no.

BTW. This is making the humungoid assumption all of your outs are squeaky clean.
What do you put the check\3betting SB on?
What about the cold/calling CO, who's only getting 5:1 on the flop with the threat of a reraise?

Granted, these thoughts aren't probably going through these players heads. But I've still got to think that at least one\two of these players are cutting into our $$ somewhere, making our edge a little smaller.

[detruncate]

You could raise pf, but it's not like it's mandatory. A limp is fine. I usually limp. If you're raising it's sure as hell not to limit the field.

I'm 3-betting this flop. Two different players have shown aggression and CO already coldcalled 2. It's still clearly for value if only CO and MP3 call, and there's at least a decent chance that everyone already trapped will see the turn. Having called, not capping when it came back to you was a signfinicant mistake.

I just call the river with 3 players left to act. We're probably significantly more likely to get overcalls than coldcallers.