Preflop confusion

[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.

[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)

[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.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you. I think it more shows that playing this spot isn't definetive in what makes a good player a good player in that the EV's are close enough and the situation doesn't come up enough for it to greatly impact ones winrate.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you. I think it more shows that playing this spot isn't definetive in what makes a good player a good player in that the EV's are close enough and the situation doesn't come up enough for it to greatly impact ones winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PassiveCaller]

I had a response typed up vehemetly disagreeing with the fact that calling w/good play would be the same as raising w/good play. But after writing and writing it just didn't seem to matter that much.

Poker isn't played in a vacuum, there's a hand, and a hand after... And a perfectly playing robot isn't playing the hand....

Perhaps seemingly ancilliary reasons are more important here then whether you call or raise.

If anything Tommy you're proof that a good/great winning player doesn't have to raise here but that doesn't mean that the values are equal. If there's anything to learn it's situations like these don't make winners, maybe if you're already at a state of greatness you could analyze these to death and find the most optimal play because there always is one. There'll be some difference it'll change your variance it'll be better or worse in some situations... Your decision here probably won't make you a winner or even effect your winrate that much.

No, no it won't. It's something else, something else it's time for me to focus on because it's the most important thing in poker and my results show it.

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
(i like to compare similar hands in the same spot and see how close the decision is). given your pokerstove analysis TT is indeed a 3 bet and 88 indeed a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also like to compare similar hands or similar flops and see where one play turns into another. Could you explain why TempusFugit's analysis means 88 is a call? It seems to me that the higher the pair, the more good flops, the more justification there is for giving the BB a chance to get in the action and to play a pot with him in as well.

Calling with the medium pairs before the flop is less attractive. The lower the pair the more important initiative becomes so you can take down boards on the flop or turn where UTG+3 misses but the flop would be too scary to put action in as a caller, with a smaller pot to boot.

The other issue that TempusFugit brings up, that the implied odds are against us, also suggests that if we play the medium pairs we need to be 3-betting them. On many of the boards where we have the best hand it will be unclear to us and that plus our poor position means our opponent will be value betting more effectively than we are and we may end up laying down the best hand. It is better to get the value in when we have our best shot at it. Sure it's possible for UTG+3 to take some pots away from us when we 3-bet and BB calls but I would guess that we lose even more boards when we call and the BB comes in a higher % of the time and we are often looking to dodge 3+ overcards instead of 2.

I also don't see how calling in the SB gives you "relative positional power". Yes, you act after the pf raiser who likely auto bets the flop but before the BB, making it difficult to trap him into a mistake even when you make a big hand. The BB has to call two cold at some point or you have to play very passively. This alone makes calling before the flop with any pair less appealing. We are not going to get that much value out of the BB no matter how bad he plays with a mediocre hand that will rarely improve on uncertain boards when he is last to act after the likely flop bettor.

I understand that the equity analysis may suggest calling with pairs lower than 99 but the other reasons given push our play to a raise if we are going to get involved. I know J_V has said many times that a raise or fold situation is rarely the case but I think hands like 88 and 77 in this spot would be an example.

regards,

raisins

P.S. I also see this situation as different from calling in the SB when there is a CO/Button raise. You are facing a much wider hand range in the steal and your opponent is placing you on a wide hand range as well. The benefit of having a third player in to get a more honest reaction from the LP player is not as important as in J_V's hand.

[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.