I broke a cardinal rule!!!

[TheHammer24]

[ QUOTE ]
Failing to 3-bet that flop was worse than buying in short, IMO. I don't think it's particularly close.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was poor

I also had a nasty 'bad win' story the other day. Flopped a full house with strong flush and straight draws. 3 guys went nuts with flop capped, and then I just managed to put 1 raise on the turn when 'bing' my computer froze..faaaaaaaarrrrrk. I rushed to my gf's pc to login but i had timed out by then (thank god for disconnect protect), only to watch it get capped on the river too... I shed a tear (and then contemplated chucking my pc out the window)

[JerseyTom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Failing to 3-bet that flop was worse than buying in short, IMO. I don't think it's particularly close.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was poor

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll pile on too... 3-bet the effing flop, please.


Tom

[Bob T.]

I don't think you really broke any cardinal rules here.

First, having a short stack isn't really a problem, in fact if you are even shorter than you were, you have a small mathematical edge, and for the most part, small mathematical edges are what we chase around here.

Second, you could have threebet the flop, but at the same time, if you make the same raise on the turn, after a club doesn't come, you make the draw pay a lot more to get there on the river, if noone plays back at you, and that happens some of the time when you threebet the flop.

Finally, everyone matched your allin bet, so you really didn't cost yourself anything at any point on this hand.

So, whatever lesson you think you learned, you got it for free.

[TheHammer24]

The problem lied in my opponents willingness to put more money into the pot than I had infront of me.

Why is failing to 3-Bet the flop so bad in this situation?
Draws aren't leaving anyways.
Sorry if this is obvious.
I often miss the obvious.












n.

[Klak]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is failing to 3-Bet the flop so bad in this situation?
Draws aren't leaving anyways.
Sorry if this is obvious.
I often miss the obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

charging draws the MAXIMUM is our mantra around here. charging anyone who is behind us currently is the whole point of this little game.

[Bob T.]

[ QUOTE ]
charging draws the MAXIMUM is our mantra around here. charging anyone who is behind us currently is the whole point of this little game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not three betting the flop, and raising the turn instead when the draw has fewer outs, charges the draw more, when the draw has less equity.

As far as I can tell, 2 SBs and 2 BBs is more than 3 SBs and 1 BB. Additionally, when the draw pays 3 SBs, he is roughly a 2-1 underdog. When he puts in the BBs, he is now more than a 4-1 underdog. Your equity has grown, between the flop and the turn, because the draw has only one more chance to catch his winner.

Waiting until the turn to raise again, charges the draw more money in return for less equity.

[Bob T.]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem lied in my opponents willingness to put more money into the pot than I had infront of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is results orientated thinking. Playing a short stack, gives you a slight mathematical edge. Just like waiting for AK gives you an edge. You don't worry about whether or not you won with AK after you raised preflop, you just play the hand, and deal with the results. You started this hand with a short stack and given that you won't be paying negative implied odds if you get more money in earlier, you should probably have threebet the flop, but you had a short stack, and you just play that, just like you play whatever hand you get dealt.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
That is results orientated thinking. Playing a short stack, gives you a slight mathematical edge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

If this is indeed a "cardinal rule" of twoplustwo, it's a horrible one.