|
|
|
|
#1
12-06-2005, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I've been wondering whether I'm missing opportunities by folding some hands, rather than 3-betting them. Consider the following situations.
(1) You are in co. A TAG (who is solid post-flop) raises in mp. If you 3-bet, you can be relatively sure the hand will end up HU. Do you fold or 3-bet with: -K10o -KJo -Q10s -A9s -A8s -A7s -J10s (2) Now assume that the MP player is somewhat of a LAG, i.e., he open-raises lightly and will follow up with aggression on the flop, but is not a maniac and will slow down eventually. You still expect a 3-bet to get it hu. Do your answers change at all? (3) Assume that the MP player is weak/tight. So his open-raise means he has a premium hand, but he is also capable of folding post-flop too easily. Do your answers change? (4) Finally, assume that the MP is kind of in between a TAG and a LAG, but now you expect that the BB will call even if you 3-bet. BB is basically very loose, likes to see flops and turns, though often folds on the river. Do your answers change now? 
|
|
#2
12-06-2005, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I might pop (2) with A8s and (3) with J10s. Figuring I have a better hand vs (2) and Im not dominated vs (3).
|
|
#3
12-06-2005, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
I might pop (2) with A8s and (3) with J10s. Figuring I have a better hand vs (2) and Im not dominated vs (3). [/ QUOTE ] Vs a weak tight raiser who might have TT-AA, AJ+, AQ+, you are often dominated with JTs. TT - 3 combos - dominated JJ - 3 combos - dominated QQ - 6 combos - dominated KK - 6 combos - dominated AA - 6 combos - dominated AJ - 12 combos - dominated AQ - 16 combos - not dominated AK - 16 combos - not dominated Dominated in 36. Not dominated in 32. When you are not dominated, you are behind, and this passive guy won't like folding his AK very often. I think it is way too expensive to 3-bet, just fold.
|
|
#5
12-06-2005, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I fold them all in every situation. Even against a LAG, you're dominated most of the time.
The only exception is JTs which I might 3-bet or just cold call if the initial raiser is weak-tight post flop and/or the blinds tend to come in most of the time. I don't mind HU against weak tight and I wouldn't mind 4-way with JTs, so I'm good whichever way it goes.
|
|
#6
12-06-2005, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
It depends a little on how he plays but a 40/30 guy wont have you dominated imo. Sure it adds a bit of variance but if the blinds fold I think its +EV.
|
|
#7
12-06-2005, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
I fold them all. Domination sucks.
Guy.
|
|
#8
12-06-2005, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
I fold them all. Domination sucks. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] but position and initiative do not
|
|
#9
12-06-2005, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I fold them all. Domination sucks. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] but position and initiative do not [/ QUOTE ] Don't tease me Josh. Are you suggesting that you might 3-bet any of those hands in the op?
|
|
#10
12-06-2005, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-betting as opposed to folding situations
[ QUOTE ]
I fold them all. Domination sucks. Guy. [/ QUOTE ] Same. Krishan
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
