If he knows that I know what he knows , 3rd level thinking..

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you are going to get it all-in, leading the flop and then 3-betting all-in shows more strength and has more fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely considered this, but I felt the stacks weren't deep enough and a 3-bet re-raise would completely pot commit him. Double the stacks for each of us and I definitely believe a lead, 3-bet to be more optimal.

Thanks

Lawrence

[Lawrence Ng]

Hi Djoyce,

[ QUOTE ]
he's third level thinking...what level does he think you are thinking on?


[/ QUOTE ]

I am very sure he also thinks I am a 3rd level thinking player.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you get called by hands that beat you here, and you fold out the ones you beat. Why don't you list AK as one of his potential hands?


[/ QUOTE ]

Partially because I have never seen him do it, mainly because the size of his re-raise screamed big pocket pair, and of course good ol' intuition. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with this hand is that it's a really dry board and there is no real reason to play a monster hand this way if you in fact have one...it really looks like a bluff to me if i'm sitting across the table....why play a set this way on this board?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question that has been bugging me about this hand is "why not play this hand like a set on this board?"
I definitely don't think I'm representing a bluff here though.

Thanks for the input djoyce.

Lawrence

I really think you are getting yourself into trouble by calling his reraise in the first place (and even raising with KQ in EP in the first place). You say the villain is semi-loose preflop, but what exactly do you mean? Does he call alot in position? Is he loose with his reraising standards. Most tricky loose players limp alot or call small raises preflop when in position because of their ability to outwit their opponents on later rounds; however, most of them have very tight reraising standards. These types of players get paid off on their reraises when people don't recognize the difference between these players raising and reraising. You were in the game, and I wasn't, but that reraise screams out AA, KK, or QQ to me. There's a chance of AK, AQ, JJ, or TT, but I would downplay those possibilities.

Given that, do you really think you can represent QQ by playing the hand the way you did? I don't think so, and as a result, I think you should cut your losses to the $60 that you used to call the reraise preflop.

I will say that, on the side, I like check raising these tricky, aggressive types in general because it usually makes them put the brakes on the extensive continuation betting.

Take Care,

Tony G