JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey

[krishan]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the sb will be 3-betting more than 50% of the time. Most will not bet into a field this large with overcards and it makes no sense not to 3bet with a pp. Added to that is increased implied odds. So I think calling is significantly better than raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to say if Villain 3-bets an overpair here we get multiple BBs on the turn most likely when we hit. So one reason to call, IE get 2 BB on turn when we hit will be the same either way if SB is so likely to 3-bet.

RAAAWWRRRAISEEE!~!~!!

Krishan

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO the sb will be 3-betting more than 50% of the time. Most will not bet into a field this large with overcards and it makes no sense not to 3bet with a pp. Added to that is increased implied odds. So I think calling is significantly better than raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to say if Villain 3-bets an overpair here we get multiple BBs on the turn most likely when we hit. So one reason to call, IE get 2 BB on turn when we hit will be the same either way if SB is so likely to 3-bet.

RAAAWWRRRAISEEE!~!~!!

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - i may have forgot to mention this but the same idea came to mind.

Surf

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest reason for a call is that SB has an overpair here a large portion of the time and he will be 3-betting, clearing out the field and ruining your equity edge. So, instead of paying one bet and having a bunch of people come along, you are now paying three bets, HU, as a 2-1 underdog.

[/ QUOTE ]

the biggest flaw in your argument is your assumption that the callers will fold when faced with two more bets. they won't. at least one will almost always call. two will usually call.

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
AK - 15 combos
AQ - 15 combos
AJ - 12 combos
ATs - 3 combos
KQs - 3 combos

A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] - 1 combo

A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] - 1 combo
K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] - 1 combo
AA - 6 combos
KK - 6 combos
QQ - 6 combos
JJ - 3 combos
TT - 3 combos
99 - 6 combos

57 > 48...ummm no...more like Overs at 48, and pocket pairs at 33...so really 33-48, overs take it

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp. only 6 combos possible, of any pp. Not a high likely hood you get 3bet, decent enough chance on occassion, but Im still in the call cap regardless.

[Dan BRIGHT]

Actually I didnt say I would raise here necessarily. I would raise if:

1) I dont think its that likely sb has an overpair that will pound chips everywhere, (note that if he 3bets ak and knocks the callers out, thats fine too because we are a faovurite over ak ui on the flop... wihle this is a worse outcome than if the callers came and paid us off, it is not a horrible outcome)

2) The callers in the middle are likely loose enough to call the 3bet (and the cap that I follow it with).


Overall the looser the callers (and higher their wtsd) the more I like the raise, and the [more agggressive the pfr sb, and tighter the callers] the less I like it.

VS unknowns that limp I assume they are loose donkeys first, so I raise without reads.

[bicyclekick]

call flop almost every time and I don't think it's overly close (although raising from time to time if you play against the same group of players is necessary)

[Trix]

Do you call because you expect the people between to fold if you raise and it gets 3bet ?

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a raise (and it's not even close). I'm surprised that so many high-volume players would call. Some points:

1) As pots become larger it becomes more and more valuable to take "free" (why don't we call them cheap?) cards. This pot is already a pretty fair size.

2) Implied odds inshmied odds. You have limpers chasing right now and a pretty big edge. Getting money in now is going to be a pretty big value play for you. No guarantee that these guys are intending to chase the next street.

3) "Implied odds" continue to suck. The SB (the PFR who lead the flop) will check the turn UI very often.

It's fun to get greedy and dream of the multiway trap on the turn when you spike your flush, but about a million things need to go right in order for this to happen. Raise now and get money in against the chasers. Give yourself the option to check behind if you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

you aren't getting 'pretty big value' from your raise, you only have one more caller above neutral EV, and that's assuming a flush is good at the river.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? If you raise the flop and bet the third spade on the turn you either have the flush or a strong hand that may include a spade.

Sounds pretty scary to me.

If you call the flop and bet when the third spade checks to you then I can clearly deduce that ... it was your turn to bet. You could have anything. AK no spade could easily have outs or even be the best hand. Ditto for all the other guys nursing dribs and drabs. You've made it real easy to hold onto their dreams and that's what gets you paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

If u attack on flop, u are representing a hand on flop. If u attack on turn u are representing a hand on turn. I think thats where the handreading must start.

I dont trust flop that much, but if someone attack on the expensive street in a multiway pot they almost always got what they represent.

Basic handreading tells us that slowplaying a good non-flush hand on flop and attack when flush hits makes no sense. It happens, but normally we will see a flush, not a non-flush.

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]
call flop almost every time and I don't think it's overly close (although raising from time to time if you play against the same group of players is necessary)

[/ QUOTE ]

After some more discussion of this hand with various people I'm realizing how close it really isn't. You are gaining almost nothing by raising and your risk:reward just isn't there. I think it's a fundamental mistake in your game if this was an auto-raise for you.