30/60 Canterbury hand

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
but in a game where someone with as tight of an image as me comes in on a reraise, if my A or K hits, I get zero extra post-flop action unless I am beat. Fishy players at those limits often play remarkably correctly, especially against straightforward tight players, postflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

But with one raiser already, aren't fishy players aware that when an Ace flops, that if they don't have one, they are likely behind? And unless you have a very strange brand of fish, if they have a weak Ace, and flop an Ace, they are going to call down through the river. So, I don't think a reraise preflop, will make a fishy player fold an Ax hand on the flop or turn, when they catch an Ace.

Since you won't get as much action post flop, when you hit, isn't it more important to get the money in preflop?

Aren't you going to have a problem that whenever you bet or check/raise it is going to be seen as a very strong hand, due to your image, regardless of the preflop action?

[Bob S.]

Well...I'm with Lawrence Ng and I_am_B on this one. Why do so many posters on here have the approach of "I have AK, CLEARLY I have the best hand, I am giving up too much equity if I don't 3 bet now." The other comment I keep hearing over and over is that "The equity you are giving up preflop CAN'T be made up post flop". Are people missing the fact that if he 3 bets preflop and brings in 4-5 extra small bets that isn't what he is actually gaining, rather only small fractions of those bets??? If UTG open raised with say AQ and was coldcalled by say a 99, What is his edge over those two players alone??? not to mention the rest of the field. Now on a favorable flop doesn't he gain a larger fraction of a bet for every bet put in after the flop??? I don't know, maybe I'm lacking in understanding basic concepts and just ranting here. So many times I see posts that seem to revolve around just what is being held by the player and not taking into account the whole situation. Anways, welcome to the boards I_am_B and keep up the great posts, I would have done the same as you.

Bob S.

[Gata Kamsky]

I think 3-betting can be a good idea at times if you can get some people out. If you can't get anyone out by 3-betting because the table is calling anything that's 3-betted your wasting your money. The reason is your giving pot odds on the flop and turn to people to call with mid/bottom pairs since the pot is so big. A-K doesn't do well with many callers, nothing does well when you have a large number of callers trying to draw out on you unless you flop a set or 2 pair/straight. So if you can get anyone to fold it's a worthwhile conjecture, personally I'd rather raise in SB if I know the table is normal/tight but if noone's going to fold I'd rather save my money, why give them odds to draw on you?

[spamuell]

I am pretty surprised no one has really commented on paragraphs 2 and 3 yet, that is where the fallacy lies:

[ QUOTE ]
Because giving extra pot-odds to players in a 4-5 way pot (note, this is the most important element of this segment, see aside at the bottom) with only a slight edge

[/ QUOTE ]

You have WAY more than a slight edge over most cold-calling hands.

[ QUOTE ]
by you putting more into a pot that you aren't that big of a favorite to win

[/ QUOTE ]

Pre-flop, you are a significant favourite. Run some sims if you want, I can't now as I'm at work but I might do some later. Post-flop, even if you miss, you don't even need to be close to a favourite to warrant putting money in the pot, as you're likely going to be getting nearly 20:1 or even if it's two bets to you 10:1 odds from the pot. And this overlay is from the money that your opponents lost by putting in money pre-flop when you had a significant edge.

[ QUOTE ]
By reraising out of the SB and if I miss the flop, what do I do? Check-call the flop meekly (unless I had set a previous precedent by acting the same with an overpair or top set) or bet out stubbornly, attempting to read/guess/pray that Mr. Rainbow Trout is going to lay down his 5 on the turn...or even the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not you reraise, there are going to be at least 11SBs in the pot on the flop before anyone puts a bet in. Even if you miss, you're not going to be able to check-fold this flop for one bet, so 3-betting doesn't enable you to get away from the hand more cheaply.

Anyway, if you check-call the flop, the reason you're doing this is because it's +EV to do this. Why would you complain about being forced into a situation with positive expectation?

[ QUOTE ]
By reraising preflop in the SB, you make yourself first to act on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

No, being in the SB makes you have to act first on the flop and there's nothing you can do to change this. I know what you mean, and you're right, it's going to be difficult to play well after the flop given that you are out of position. This is why you MUST take advantage of the fact that you have a pre-flop edge to exploit.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If UTG open raised with say AQ and was coldcalled by say a 99, What is his edge over those two players alone???

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it sucks to be AQ. And how is 99 gonna feel vs. a flop 3-bettor and all those callers when the flop comes Jack or Ten high and he didn't make a set? He's not gonna like it.

What about the fish in there with 65s and T9o? Do you want to be them or do you want to be AK?

[Ezcheeze]

"Why do so many posters on here have the approach of 'I have AK, CLEARLY I have the best hand, I am giving up too much equity if I don't 3 bet now.'"

The reason is because it is correct. Maybe some poeple are just regurgitating something they hear alot, but most have given it considerable thought and realize that 3-betting is right, so it shouldn't surprise you that so many poeple take this approach.

"Now on a favorable flop doesn't he gain a larger fraction of a bet for every bet put in after the flop???"

True...but what is your point? You think not 3-betting will gain you more postflop bets on a favorable flop then if you didn't 3-bet? Making the pot bigger will encourage them to put MORE bets in postflop when you get a good flop - Ironnically, this is the crux of the argument for NOT 3-betting since your opponents won't be making much of a mistake to chase in such a big pot. You seem to be confused as to the reasons for not 3-betting.

-Ezcheeze

[Andy B]

Clearly, you're not going to get anyone out. So freaking what? Despite what some people seem to think, AK is capable of winning a showdown against multiple opponents. You're not raising to get people out; you're raising to get more money in with what is presumed to be the best hand.

[Andy B]

[ QUOTE ]
....in a game where someone with as tight of an image as me comes in on a reraise, if my A or K hits, I get zero extra post-flop action unless I am beat.

[/ QUOTE ]
This strikes me as being somewhat ridiculous. I don't know you, but I know Nate, and I know a lot of the live ones in that game. I would say that Nate has a fairly tight image as far as things go. These guys call his raise with, say, AT because, well hell, it's AT, isn't it? When Nate bets that Ace-high flop, do they suddenly think, "ooh, Nate must have a better Ace; I should fold"? Hell no. They've hit their hand. Now it could be that your image is even tighter than Nate's, and when you three-bet out of the blind, that should sound alarms. Nonetheless, if these guys catch top pair along with you, you're going to get paid. And if you do manage to claim a $450 pot on the flop, is that a bad thing?

[Andy B]

I say three-bet.

1) Three-betting is fun.

2) Nate can be pushed around. Pushing people around is fun. Pushing Nate around is even funner. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

3) You have Ace-King, for crying out loud.

Calling is fine. You're out of position, I'd prefer a smaller field, it is deceptive (although the fact that you're calling for $40 should alert at least Nate that you have a little something. If you just call, you improve your position after the flop, assuming Nate bets. You might be able to check-raise the field, or you might be able to get away from it if you miss and it's bet and raised. On balance, though, I think the three-bet is the way to go.


I hope that if Nate happens to read this, he takes it in the fun-loving spirit in which it was intended, or at least he doesn't punch me out next time I see him.

[Andy B]

Another thing about three-betting is that if Nate has the temerity to come over the top of you, you should have a better idea of how to proceed after the flop. Given the small blind's alleged image, I don't think that Nate four-bets with AKs.