My Aces are running baaaaad! Is it my fault?

[Catt]

Same proviso about asking / challenging . . .

[ QUOTE ]
Limit hold'em is an interesting game because you can always "call down" if you really want to know what someone has. It will cost us 2 BB to "call down" and it will cost us 2 BB to make it 3-bets on the turn (just to make it 3-bets).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean that "calling down" was crawling into a shell rather than making the right play. But I did mean that "calling down" needed a justification. I felt that a 3-bet was more than just making it 3 bets -- I felt that a 3-bet was pushing an equity edge (more on this below), challenging a possible (though unlikely) semi-bluff, and punishing bad play from an unknown.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have the best hand here 33% of the time??? If we don't, calling down strictly dominates 3-betting. We actually need to have more then 33% equity to 3-bet because we open ourselves up to a cap when we 3-bet. In this hand, we probably have 10-20% equity so making it 3-bets gets dominated by calling down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I must have a really poor sense of accurate equity. My knee-jerk reaction would've been that we do have greater than 33% equity here most of the time (and enough of the time so that the weighted-average equity is greater than 33%). Is it really less than 20%? I need a much better sense of this if I am to continue with this game.

[Shillx]

Meh. I was off a bit.

If he will only raise with a hand better then AA (and not KK), we have about 18% equity.

If he will raise with some other hands (like Kx) then we have about 25-30%.

Calling down the turn raise is the best play in thie hand.

Brad

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
If he will only raise with a hand better then AA (and not KK), we have about 18% equity.

If he will raise with some other hands (like Kx) then we have about 25-30%.

Calling down the turn raise is the best play in this hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] Thanks for calculating this.

I need a better sense on hand strength post-flop given the board and betting actions.

[chris_a]

Been meaning to respond for a while to this, just been busy...

[ QUOTE ]
The pot is such on the turn that calling to see the river is at least as good as folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
3-betting the turn probably isn't the correct play (from a pure strategy standpoint).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the play in question.

[ QUOTE ]
The best play in situations like this is to call the turn raise and fold the river UI (where UI = you don't make aces up).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is that clear cut. First of all, reraising does have one advantage that you didn't mention at all. That the player to my left is really bad and that he's going to call this because he's in to the river now. This is probably funding my opponent and me since he likely has few outs to beat me or him.

I would not fold unimproved after a pot like this since this guy would possibly try to make a move with Kx in this pot. There's also chances for him to have a flush draw semi-bluff, TPTK played aggressively. Yes the chances are small, but going to the showdown definite value here even UI. I'd have to have a really solid read to play it your way. Folding an overpair on a board like this to a turn raise and a river bet isn't clearly the best strategy here by any means.

[ QUOTE ]
By dominated strategy I mean that there is another strategy that is "freerolling" it.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I understand and appreciate the concept of a dominated strategy (I have studied some game theory in my research), just saying that it's a "dominated strategy" isn't answering the question at all. It's like saying, My play is better than your play because yours is "Goobledygook" where "Goobledygook" is defined as a worse play. It doesn't say why.... Nowhere do you mention his reads (except for the implication that he could have junk two pair.)

Bringing the term "dominated strategies" into it adds nothing to the content of the hand discussion IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Putting 5 BB into this pot is crazy IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the way I like to think about my hands. I want to think about making the highest EV decisions as they come and not how many bets I'm putting "into the pot". If 3-betting isn't great on the turn, that's fine, but this is bad reasoning.

BTW, I really don't have any hard feelings about your post and I don't want it to come off that way since I've realized that my reply could seem a bit judgemental. I just want to get to the bottom of this because I'm not convinced by this response that 3-betting isn't right. Not yet at least.