A hand from the 2+2 table last night

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
No, no. I'm not capping a 3bet. I'm saying that if he's putting in 3bets with overcards, then surely I'm ahead often enough to put in a single raise, right, rather than just calling down?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which street are you talking about?

You mean if you raise the flop and he 3-bets?

My line would be call the flop, raise the turn, call down if he 3-bets.

If I raised the flop and he 3-bet I still wouldn't be able to narrow him down much, and I don't see myself folding anywhere in the near future, which is why I don't like raising the flop.

It's a lot easier for him to 3-bet the flop than it is the turn w/ AK, etc., since he probably thinks he's good a lot of the time when you raise the flop, but when you raise the turn he's going to have to play poker.

If he does 3-bet the turn w/ overcards I think he's spraying.

[MrWookie47]

I think at this point we're arguing past each other with semantics, so we should probably drop it. I was just noting that you had said that if someone was spraying so badly as to be 3betting with UI overcards, your plan would be to call down all the way. I was thinking we should find a raise in there and call down when 3bet if he's spraying that badly. That seems to be what you advocate in your second post. I think I agree with you that I would rather raise the turn than the flop.

[cold_cash]

Okie dokie.

I wasn't trying to be a pain in the ass, I just wasn't clear if we were talking about facing a flop 3-bet or a turn 3-bet.

[Kumubou]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm raising the flop, calling a 3-bet and raising nearly any turn for a free showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate this play, especially heads-up -- because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Your 'free' showdown costs you just as much as calling him down does! Plus add in the off chance he checks the river after you call anyway, or the much uglier prospect of getting 3-bet on the turn or stop-and-goed on the river. So raising on the turn for the sake of a 'free' showdown is obscenely atupid.

[ QUOTE ]
What is Pax's goal with that c/r? Is it strictly value in his mind, or could there be a bluff component? What hands does he think I'm capable of folding here? What would he expect me to call down? What would he expect me to 3bet? How do those hands stack up against his range?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it depends on his actual hand. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

For something like AK it is a goodish semi-bluff, hoping that you would call down with AQ or KQ or the like, thinking that your cards are live while getting 8:1 on a call. Ot he can also hope he can fold out a hand like 99-TT and even if you call, he still has outs. He's either way ahead or drawing live here; it's a bizarro option select

Or he could have a big pair and do this purely for value. It just sucks for you because your hand is on the lower end of all this.

-K

[MrWookie47]

How often can he actually expect me to fold 88-TT here? Is there anyone who's advocating that I fold?

[MrWookie47]

I'm going to fan the flames a bit. I'm getting roughly 9:2 on calling down. I think I should fold this turn against an expert player.

[kapw7]

You are most likely behind but 9:2 (or less-sometimes he checks the river) are excellent odds to call down with your 99. So did you change your mind after this hand?

[Paxosmotic]

This was a very well played hand from both angles, I felt. Glad to see it stuck out in your mind.

[MrWookie47]

I called down in this hand, but I think it was wrong. I think it may even be a larger that 1 BB mistake. Here's why I think that way.

On page 239 of TOP, Sklansky writes, "When an opponent bets in a situation where he is sure you're going to call, he is not bluffing." Pax, in this situation, knew I was going to call him down. 2+2ers are incapable of folding any pair here against an aggressive player who "might be trying to fold them." They'll even call down with respectable A's. They might fold KQ or AT, but AK is probably getting shown down, certainly A7 and 99. If he had AK, he should be thinking about getting to showdown rather than trying to fold me. The only hands I'll fold are the ones that are drawing to 3 outs. A check/raise is very -EV for AK in this spot. What hands is it +EV for? Well, it's +EV for hands that are a favorite to win against my range given that I call. Pax could have me nailed down pretty tightly to 66-TT, A7 or AQ at this point, maybe AKo if I'm a wimp. Just about anything else is capping preflop or isn't raising and betting that flop. I'm certainly not calling with anything worse than those. So, what does Pax have? TT-AA, obviously. There is certainly a chance he's making a mistake, but 1 time in 4.5? Unlikely. He both has to have AK/AQ at the expense of AA-TT AND be playing them badly. I was destined by the cards to lose money on this hand, but I lost almost 2 BB more than I needed to (almost 2, because there's a chance he's playing badly).

[Paxosmotic]

After this analysis, is there anyone left on the forum needing convincing of how awesome Matt is at poker? The guy is spot on, both on his read of me and of the situation.