KK 3 bets the turn! - Page 2

MrWookie47 · #11 10-01-2005, 06:25 PM

Give me an explicit range of hands that you think CO might have. Count them up. Count how many beat you, and how many are semi-bluffs like you describe. How many actually pull ahead of you because of a non-flush Q? How many do you remain behind? Being able to do this is a very valuable exercise, and something that every good poker player should be able to do.

LoaferGee12 · #12 10-01-2005, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I rarely 3 bet the turn with just an overpair HU, but I thought this one was pretty clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes this so much different? It's not like this guy is a LAG or anything.

Mathieu · #13 10-01-2005, 08:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Give me an explicit range of hands that you think CO might have. Count them up. Count how many beat you, and how many are semi-bluffs like you describe. How many actually pull ahead of you because of a non-flush Q? How many do you remain behind? Being able to do this is a very valuable exercise, and something that every good poker player should be able to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here goes:

CO was aggressive pre-flop and post flop. He would bet/raise liberally from what I saw. I know his stats don't support this... but he probably callls liberally too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Anyways I gave him a semibluffing % of about 20% in this spot (with AQ and KQ), and I feel it is being realistic given what I had seen from him.

When he raised me on the turn I thought it was very unlikely that this raise meant strength because it was not consistent with the way I thought he would have played most of the holdings that beat me.

His range was:

77 for a set: 1 way
(3 ways but I discount it to only 1 way as I don't think he plays it like that more than 50 % of the time, so if we remove a 7, it makes only 3 possibilities, then there is only one way he can have a set).

AJ for TPTK: 2 ways
(12 ways, discounted to 2 because I don't think he plays it this way that often)

AQ: 3.5 (16 ways discounted to 3.5) ~22% semi-bluffing

KQ: 1.5 (8 ways discounted to 1.5) ~19% semi-bluffing

JTs for top 2: 0.50 (2 ways discounted to 0.50) he raises the flop with that, I feel 0.50 is being generous.

TT for a set: 0.50 (3 ways discounted to 0.50) he 3 bets pre-flop or raises the flop with that so again I feel 0.50 is somewhat generous.

I think other hands are unlikely enough that we can ignore them safely, even QJ, as I think he rarely plays it this way.

That gives him 9 possible hands, and I beat 7 of them!! That makes me more than 2-1 favorite and the raise is correct even if I have to payoff a reraise, when behind.

Once he called immediately, I was pretty sure I was against a semi-bluff, and was rooting for Q to fall.

The Q improves 5 semi-bluffing hands so that they can call me. The K improves 1.5 of them (KQ) but completes 3.5 others (AQ), costing me the whole pot [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

milesdyson · #14 10-01-2005, 09:26 PM

i don't mean to be condescending/rude/whatever, but that is a really good example of bad hand reading and improper use of calculating hand ranges. you don't just discount 14 of 16 combos because you think he "wouldn't play it that way."

your analysis says that 50% of the time he raises the turn he doesn't even have a pair... do you really think this?

TomBrooks · #15 10-01-2005, 11:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best card is Q that does not complete a flush draw! It allows me to get paid off by some KQ or AQ combination that he might have been semi-bluffing with.

[/ QUOTE ]Burn, Tom! Duh, don't you know anything? I can't believe that you and Wookie both responded to this post, and both of you were wrong!

[/ QUOTE ]
Yah, OP has a point. There's nothing like putting three Broadways on the board to get a lot of action for your overpair.

Shillx · #16 10-01-2005, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i don't mean to be condescending/rude/whatever, but that is a really good example of bad hand reading and improper use of calculating hand ranges. you don't just discount 14 of 16 combos because you think he "wouldn't play it that way."

your analysis says that 50% of the time he raises the turn he doesn't even have a pair... do you really think this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to this guy...he is good. Fwiw, I feel like 3-betting is suicide here. Even more so out of position when you can get popped on the river.

Brad

Mathieu · #17 10-02-2005, 12:23 AM

Shillx & Miles,

I have great respect for you guys and I value your advice.

I guess I got out of my way with this hand reading business. I think dicounting possibilities is ok and can make a range much more accurate in certain cases. It is quite possible that did it wrong. I will reconsider; I am here to learn after all.

I guess I got a little result oriented with this hand. I am still not convinced that 3 betting was not the right play but I will give it some serious thought.

Thanks for the advice [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MrWookie47 · #18 10-02-2005, 01:42 AM

Discounting the exact number of hands from your range is a very good thing to do. However, you have to remember that there are a LOT of players who'll play 22 and 77 EXACTLY like villain did here. Waiting to the turn to raise sets and trips is so common that it is what I assume until proven otherwise.

Mathieu · #19 10-02-2005, 02:07 AM

I agree that there are a lot of players that would play 22 and 77 exactly like villain here. Especially in good Loose passive games [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

The player I was facing did not appear to be that loose. I thought that if he would play a mid pair against me, he would likely isolate me to get it heads up since he was aggressive. I was not sure about that, so in my analysis I gave villain about 50% chance of playing 77 this way (cold calling preflop). I thought this was like removing one 7 from the deck, so it would reduce his possible set combinations to 1, but I was wrong. It is more like 3 ways x 0.50 = 1.5 way. I thought 22 was really unlikely, but I could have perhaps given it some low probability.

The main reason why I 3 bet this hand was that villain appeared to be really straight forward on the flop. When he had a hand or a draw he would show aggression, otherwise he would peel or fold. So his raise on the turn mostly matched semi-bluffing hands that he would raise occasionnally, or monster hands that he would rarely cold call pre-flop. I also had to give some probability to a strong top pair hand like AJ which may wait for the turn to raise since it is in good shape vs big aces that I could be raising with.

Jimmy The Fish · #20 10-02-2005, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Discounting the exact number of hands from your range is a very good thing to do. However, you have to remember that there are a LOT of players who'll play 22 and 77 EXACTLY like villain did here. Waiting to the turn to raise sets and trips is so common that it is what I assume until proven otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they're the same people who will cold-call two bets with a small pair, even heads-up when they're not getting pot odds. 22 is the hand I'd be most likely to put villain on, especially if he's LAGgier than his stats represent.

If you feel the need to throw another bet out there, consider saving it for a black-rag river checkraise. Me, I'd probably just call it down unimproved.

Follow-up question: if villain does indeed have the winning hand, does anyone show him what he's beaten? Make him feel good about an incorrect play, to encourage more of the same?