raised 99 with Ace on flop against pfreraiser

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting interpretation.
According to mine weak means "not reasonable", the contrary to strong: "reasonable".
When there is a raise from early position, and the raiser is TAG, that means he has AT, AJ, AQ, AK, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, the probability of KK, QQ, JJ, TT (especially if this player did not cap preflop about 25-27%, that means 3/4 of time this player has an Ace in his hand. With, for example, KK you should pay 2,5BB to get to know the truth, that means that on the flop (when I bet) you have a bit more than 1:1 in pot odds to win by the river, and your chances to win are maximum 1:3 (25% I have lower middle pair +10% of catching a set), that means, that calling with KK for you to the end means -EV.
That is not strong play, strong play is to fold or to raise and to see the reaction.
Where did I find the figures?
The probability to get AA (KK or 44) on preflop -1/220, AK (AQ, AT) - 1/82.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not picking on you.
but in the language of poker, weak does not mean "not reasonable".

i still think your calculations are wrong.
on an ace high board (one ace present) these are the possible combinations of hands that a tag will 3-bet preflop:

AA - 6 combinations
KK - 12
QQ - 12
JJ - 12
TT - 12
AQ - 12
AK - 12

note- i think most tags won't 3-bet AQ, so i think it should be AQs only, but i'll leave it as AQ and 12.

those numbers mean that there are 30 ways for him to have an ace (AA, AK, AQ) and 48 ways for him to have KK-TT. you can play with the numbers and other hands like AJs to see how it works out. but 30/78 he has an ace, or about 37% of the time.

and your statement about strong vs weak play doesn't make sense. sometimes it is correct (very strong) to take a passive line and simply call down. sometimes that same line is not strong play.

but you get the idea...