Cold Calling and PT - Page 3

tiltaholic · #21 03-28-2005, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, I don't think 3-betting here is the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

implying......i should fold?

davelin · #22 03-28-2005, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, I don't think 3-betting here is the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

implying......i should fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think cold-calling here is fine. Your equity against 4 limpers is much different than an EP raiser and some cold-callers IMO.

tiltaholic · #23 03-28-2005, 06:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your equity against 4 limpers is much different than an EP raiser and some cold-callers IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I defintely raise in this situation if they are all limpers. But I didn't know if that change in equity translated into enough of a loss to make 3-betting a poor choice. Thanks.

davelin · #24 03-28-2005, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your equity against 4 limpers is much different than an EP raiser and some cold-callers IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I defintely raise in this situation if they are all limpers. But I didn't know if that change in equity translated into enough of a loss to make 3-betting a poor choice. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have nothing definite but I think so. Even your typical PPer has slightly higher standards for cold-calling hands versus limping hands. Even if not, an EP raiser has a significantly better hand. Plus this pot is more likely to be capped than limp-reraised in a all-limper scenario which cuts into your implied odds.

AlmightyJay · #25 03-28-2005, 10:18 PM

Ok, looking through the stats, this is what I think:

1,331 hands, 7 cold-calls.

One was in a 6-handed game with AQs. I had a reason at the time for not 3-betting, but I can't recall it now.

One was with TT calling three bets, I should have capped it but I tend to not have the cajones to do it with TT.

One was with 88 in the CO, an UTG raiser and two callers. Marginal, probably.

One was with QTs and is a clear fold.

QJs on the button after three limpers and a CO raise. I felt all three limpers would stay in and there was a good chance both blinds would as well (they did).

44 on the button in a 5-handed game. I suck at short-handed and was only playing through to my blinds. I should have folded.

And then there's 87s on the button which I should have folded.

TomBrooks · #26 03-29-2005, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
One was with TT calling three bets, I should have capped...
One was with 88 in the CO, an UTG raiser and two callers. Marginal, probably.
One was with QTs and is a clear fold.
One was with QJs on the button after three limpers and a CO raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
The TT hand- I don't think you should have capped it. In a tight game, I believe TT should be folded against a raise and reraise. In a loose game, if you have four or more players in, I believe it would be correct to just cold call three with the TT.

The 88 hand- I think this was a clear cold call. With three people in the pot before you, I would reraise TT, but cold call with all pocket pairs from 99 right down to 22.

The QTs hand- You didn't give any details about this hand, but if the game is reasonably loose and four people have entered the pot before me, and if no Rocks have cold called ahead of me, I will cold call with any two suited Broadways.

The QJs hand- Fine. See the QTs hand above.

What do you think about that?

jaxUp · #27 03-29-2005, 10:53 AM

my thoughts exactly.

AlmightyJay · #28 03-29-2005, 11:13 AM

The games are generally very loose, this is .02/.04 on PS. And trust me, the QTs is a clear fold.. it's embarrassingly bad, that's why I don't want to give any details [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Suffice it to say that I know it was bad and I realize why it was bad.

TomBrooks · #29 03-29-2005, 11:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
this is .02/.04 on PS.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, I have a feeling that considerably more cold calling may be justified at .02/.04 because there are probably a lot of people raising with hands that they wouldn't raise with at higher limits, and there are probably a lot of other people cold calling with hands that they shouldn't thereby putting a lot of extra money into the pot without a corresponding amount of equity.

I doubt if trying to analyse stats from 02/04 is even practical because of factors like that, or at least I think you can correctly play considerably looser than you would at .25/.50 or .5/1.

droolie · #30 03-29-2005, 11:57 AM

I went about 20,000 hands without CCing and I think it was a mistake. I've begun CC with moderate infrequnecy lately. Specifically with hands that have great implied odds but hit infrequently. Some of my CC hands I used to muck others I auto-three bet. I will now CC small pocket pairs from LP when I know the pot will be multiway but not 6+. I will also CC small-mid suited connectors and suited broadway from LP in multiway pots. I sometimes 3-bet these hands but many times game conditions convince me that CC is higher EV than raising. Many of these hands I will play fit or fold and will need the pot to be 6+ way before I want to raise.