Tu madre!

[fellfold]

I don't see how pot size affects the decision to three bet or not at the river. Assuming you are not folding to a 4 bet, you've already won what's in the middle or you haven't. When faced with a river bet you wont fold to, you options are to either call or raise.

If you decide to call, then your EV is a simple pot odds decision and you only have to be right a small percentage of the time to be right.

The EV of a 3-bet is more complicated. Assuming no one folds, the money in the pot is already going to the person with the best hand. The value of a raise is determined by how often you have the best hand. Your value is determined by how often (ignoring ties)

1. a hand you can beat calls you (you gain an extra bet)
2. a hand that beats you calls you (you lose an extra bet)
3. a hand that you beat 4-bets you (you gain two extra bets)
4. a hand that beats you 4-bets you (you lose two extra bets)

But these don't all happen with the same frequency. I would argue you need to be a marginal amount better than 50% to make a 3-bet profitable. Why? Because #4 is probably going to happen more often than #2 and #1 is going to happen WAY more often than #3.

So unless you have a good read that you are ahead, just call. In this case if you read the guy for a draw and the draw gets there and he raises you, call or fold. Given your read, 3-betting with the intent of extracting more money means you are just dreaming.

At the river, the gap concept is much different. You need a much better hand to raise than you need to call.

[Bruce D]

[ QUOTE ]
The total pot size is irrelevant to the value of the 3-bet on the river.

The 3-bet can only gain 1 extra bet or two if villian caps with the losing hand so you are risking 1 BB to win 1BB which is why Sierra mentioned 50%

Im also not convinced the 3-bet is standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that? Don't we have to consider how often the 3 bet is from a worse hand? If we say its always a better hand then its a fold. If we say its always a worse hand then we cap it. So obviously somewhere in between we meet. We are ahead a percentage and behind a percentage. Whether we are ahead or behind there is still an EV(+ or -) for putting in that bet isn't there?

Are we arguablys saying that its 50% of the time?

[Gazzbut]

Im not quite sure what you mean! All im saying is that the pot size is irrelevant because if you have the best hand you can already scoop the pot with a call. If you 3 bet you are doing so to try and gain an extra bet. In that case you do have to hold the best hand over 50% of the time for it to be a value bet.

fellfold explained it better!

[fellfold]

I argue it's more than 50% if the time due to how much you lose when you get 4-bet by a better hand. The exact number depends on your opponent. In this particular situation, you'll get 4-bet by a [big] flush or a boat almost automatically. How often is a worse 3 of a kind (and there aren't many out there) or top two pair going to 4-bet this? Almost never.

[mixmastermattyk]

I think the 3-bet on the river is a winner here because against THIS opponent, we can expect to be ahead a greater % of the time. To me, a 4.2 AF means that he is going to bluff raise to represent this flush a lot more than a less aggressive opponent or has paired his ace and is playing it super agro.

In a more general sense, I think fellfold is right about % of getting value from the 3-bet on the river, but against this opponent we are easily ahead more than 50% of the time so there is definite value in it.

[Grease]

Quick question Haupt.

What do we do if he caps the river? I know we puke, but is there any chance our hand is good?

I'm not advocating to 3-bet/folding the river, as that would be the kiss of death to your image, and this guy would start to piss all over you, but would he cap the river with anything less than the flush?

That's the only reason why 3-betting this turn could be incorrect (although I think it is correct, FWIW.)

[SixForty]

When I first mentioned the 50%, I always use it as just a ballbark rounded off figure. It's true that the number really needs to be something like 55% or so - the others explained it better. Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
I think the 3-bet on the river is a winner here because against THIS opponent, we can expect to be ahead a greater % of the time. To me, a 4.2 AF means that he is going to bluff raise to represent this flush a lot more than a less aggressive opponent or has paired his ace and is playing it super agro.

In a more general sense, I think fellfold is right about % of getting value from the 3-bet on the river, but against this opponent we are easily ahead more than 50% of the time so there is definite value in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll believe that we can be ahead more than 50% of the time, but are we ahead more than 50% of the time that he calls our 3bet? That's the question.

Because of the fact that this guy is capable of bluffraising makes calling his raise a no brainer. But Hero can't use that reasoning alone to reraise. Imagine this scenario. Let's pretend that Villain either has the flush, or he is bluffraising. And let's say that he has the flush only 20% of the time, and 80% of the time he is bluffraising.

This means calling his raise is a no brainer - he's bluffing way too much. But Hero can't reraise - the only thing Villain is going to do is fold his bluff or punish us with a cap with his flush. Therefore 3betting never gains extra bets when Hero is ahead, and loses more bets when Hero is behind.

If this is the type of opponent who will bluffcap a significant portion of the time, then there's definitely value in the 3bet. Here's my problem with that. This guy is 4.2 in the aggression department. Yet he slowed down on the turn. Given the action and the read that OP gave us, this makes me believe one of two things: Villain now knows that he is behind to trip 4s, or Villain knows that he couldn't get his free card for his draw (possibly both). When Villain comes alive again on the river, either he is bluffing, or that river card helped him. If he's bluffing, the value of the 3bet isn't there (unless he'll bluffcap, as already mentioned) if he's not bluffing, I think the fact that Hero's hand is pretty well defined combined with the action Villain has taken so far leads me to believe that Villain is raising with a better hand more often than a worse hand.

[Haupt_234]

[ QUOTE ]
What do we do if he caps the river? I know we puke, but is there any chance our hand is good?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would call the cap and not feel good about it, but I think once in a while he could play a rivered 2 pair like this given his high aggression factor and the fact that I didn't play my hand like a FD.

Haupt_234

[Haupt_234]

[ QUOTE ]
The river, I'm not sure I like the 3bet. You've said yourself that Villain loves to use the bet or 3bet play for a free card. Given his flop and turn line here, it looks like that is something that he was trying to do. It looks like he is drawing, and he now knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is an over aggressive tight player who uses the freecard play WAY too much. Why do you feel so strongly that he has made a flush, and that this one time, he had a FD on the flop when he tried to free card me?

This is why when the river comes, I still believe MHIG and, at most, he hit 2 pair. He might not even need 2 pair to make that river raise since he could have likely been on a draw with AK/AQ/AJ.

I was merely protecting my blind and likely had a weak holding, so why wouldn't he raise the river if he hit it?

Haupt_234

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
He is an over aggressive tight player who uses the freecard play WAY too much. Why do you feel so strongly that he has made a flush, and that this one time, he had a FD on the flop when he tried to free card me?

This is why when the river comes, I still believe MHIG and, at most, he hit 2 pair. He might not even need 2 pair to make that river raise since he could have likely been on a draw with AK/AQ/AJ.

I was merely protecting my blind and likely had a weak holding, so why wouldn't he raise the river if he hit it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just the flop play, it's the flop and turn play combined that make me wonder. We obviously have enough to call his raise.

I'm just not sure that we have enough value to 3 bet. I doubt he hit two pair on the river, because I think he'd show more action on the turn with one pair.

I think the only hands you're getting value from with that 3bet are overplayed overcards - AX. So given the way that it was played, add in the fact that it looks like you hit trip 4s, how likely is he to have an AX hand compared to how likely he has the flush?

(Keeping in mind that with his AX hand, you'll most likely win one extra bet from him, while with his flush hands, he's winning 2 extra bets from you)