Preflop confusion

[Joe Tall]

To throw a wrench in the 3-betting camp for the sake of discussion:

Have we considered the times that just calling allows us to c/r the BB out of the pot? EP will likely contiuation bet as we also know he'll likely miss and we get it HU w/a c/r and take it down with a turn bet?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
To throw a wrench in the 3-betting camp for the sake of discussion:

Have we considered the times that just calling allows us to c/r the BB out of the pot as EP will likely contiuation bet as we also know he'll likely miss and we get it HU and take it down with a turn bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

yup.

[ QUOTE ]
one thing you left out, tempus, is that if you call, you will be able to leverage your relative position very well.

22/12/2 (very aggressive postflop fairly tight preflop and aggressive preflop) is going to bet near 100% of the flops that come down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Barron

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
Have we considered the times that just calling allows us to c/r the BB out of the pot? EP will likely contiuation bet as we also know he'll likely miss and we get it HU w/a c/r and take it down with a turn bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this, along with managing a pot size, makes all the argument in the world for calling. 99 is simply not suited to win a big pot from the SB without a set. By 3-betting, you're setting yourself in a position where you'll rarely get to offer either player worse than 7:1 odds to draw out on you. With 99 in the SB, I start getting vague ideas of trying to win this pot by the turn.

[andyfox]

Many opponents will call almost without thinking on a raggedy flop with just overcards when there is no 3-bet preflop. But they will just as easily fold when there was a preflop 3-bet. It's not what they should do, given the pot size and the fact that you're more likely to not be helped by a raggedy flop when you 3-bet, but it's what happens often enough. So yes, you offer better pot odds in theory to be drawn out on by 3-betting, but in pratice, the 3-bet may "buy" you the pot.

[Paluka]

I think just calling and 3 betting is close. I do not consider folding because calling and getting a 3 way pot with one donk involved seems too good to pass up.
The reasons to call are similar to the reasons why I sometimes cold call from the small blind when the button open raises. I want to give the big blind a chance to play badly if he will call with complete trash and my hand plays decent multiway (I don't mean to imply I would coldcall with 99 if it were a button raise, of course) I think having a third guy in the hand who plays badly makes it possible to get more out of the set value for my hand, and also makes it less likely that I fold a winner because the PFR has to play more straightforward with a third guy in the hand.
I think this would be a good spot to cold call preflop, but then bet just about any flop with only one overcard. There is a good shot the fishy big blind will peel on a lot of flops with marginal holdings, and now the pfr will have a difficult time continuing the hand against 2 opponents without a solid holding, making it unlikely you will be moved off a winner.

[PassiveCaller]

I don't see how calling is making him "play badly". Even some of the worst hands he'll call with aren't really playing that badly (think of magnitude of error) calling one in the BB, while if they call 2 they are playing badly.

You're only making a set 1 in 7.5 times, if you're playing for set value here and think you're behind this changes everything while otherwise (if you are ahead which you'll rate to be) you'll be giving up more equity then UTG in most situations by letting the BB in even with as little as 72o.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how calling is making him "play badly". Even some of the worst hands he'll call with aren't really playing that badly (think of magnitude of error) calling one in the BB, while if they call 2 they are playing badly.

You're only making a set 1 in 7.5 times, if you're playing for set value here and think you're behind this changes everything while otherwise (if you are ahead which you'll rate to be) you'll be giving up more equity then UTG in most situations by letting the BB in even with as little as 72o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of him playing badly is because he is supposed to be a bad player. I like to get him involved, because he will make substantial postflop errors. I think these are more likely than him calling 3 bets preflop in general. I guess if he calls 3 bets just as easily as 2, then jamming preflop is better.
I'm not surprised that this situation caused some differences in opinion. This is one of the toughest spots in limit holdem. If you make the big blind a reasonable player instead of a bad one, and I'd be surprised if there was a huge difference between folding, calling and reraising preflop.

[PassiveCaller]

I guess I'm not seeing these huge situations where the bad player overly spews (except the times we flop a set and 3-betting could even disguise this further) outweighing the equity given up to almost any hand in the BB. We only have a pair of 9s out of position and while sometimes we'll make better reads with 3 players we'll also sometimes end up giving more free cards to beat us when they don't cooperate and have a larger collective pool of outs to beat us cheaply.

Do I really want KT/KJ/QJ or anything like that calling here for 1 bet and rightfully so. Any two overcards give us a sizeable equity hit here and we'll lose more equity then AQ/KQ/AK in those situations by the hand calling. In that case we actually fall behind. In another instance 2 suited cards calling we lose a lot more equity then the AK(though we stay ahead).

Edit: Your argument is interesting for slowplaying AA or KK in this situation sometimes in my mind more then 99 or if we think there is a stronger chance we are behind for some reason but still rate to be ahead. (So perhaps 88)

[Glenn]

This is a style issue. Every successful holdem player can adapt situationally, but also has a prefered default style. Some are pounders, some are floaters. It's like how some people learn by reading and some learn by listening. The correct play is the one that fits your style. That is, the one that puts you in a position to gain the most information and execute your prefered plan based on your own strengths and weaknesses. At this level, it's more about creating situations where you are comforatable and your opponenet is uncomfortable than it is about simulated EV and such.

[Tommy Angelo]

"One player said calling was definitely an option. Another player said calling sucked bad. Both players beat every game under the sun."

This does not surprise me. The conclusion to draw isn't that calling gets the same value as raising. It's that calling followed by playing good gets the same value as raising followed by playing good.