Paradise 1/2 -- Should I play this slower?

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
It still isn't 1-1, so cap it. Lets face it, when you have the second nuts and run up against the nuts, you're gonna (and you should) lose some bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

But do you really need to lose the last 2?

Let's face it - Hero 3bet the flop and was capped. Hero 3bet the turn and was capped. Hero leads out the river and Villain is STILL raising. Hero's hand is well defined. And Villain still keep's going.

This is simply a matter of EV. So let's look at the EV. Folding the river is ridiculous. Everyone knows that. Hero is getting 28.5-1 to call. Since we know that Hero will win this hand well more than the 3.5% or so that he needs to for calling to be correct, calling is therefore +EV.

For raising to be +EV, it's a much different situation. We need to make sure that:

(the percentage of times Villain has 88 or worse and calls * 1)
plus
(the percentage of times Villain has 88 or worse and caps * 2)
minus
(the percentage of times Villain has 99 * 2)

is greater than zero.

If you look at these equations and numbers closely, I think that those advocating a river 3bet are putting too much belief into 2 things:

- the likelyhood of Villain having any of the four hands 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], is equal given the action so far
- Villain will still cap the river with a worse hand a somewhat significant portion of the time

So let's say we grant both of these assumptions. Let's say that each of the 4 hands listed is equally likely and Villain will always cap the river with 88. This is best case scenario for Hero. Then the EV of a 3 bet is:

(0.75*2) - (0.25*2) = 1

So absolute best case scenario if we grant those assumptions is that Hero's EV is +1.

But look what happens when we change those assumptions and make them a bit more rational. If we switch things up so that Villain is smart enough to cap with 99 but only call down with 88:

(0.75*1) - (0.25*2) = 0.25

Hero's EV drops to only 1/4 of a bet.

If we change things to weight 99 a little bit higher than the 88's, let's say 99 is 40% likely and each of the three 88 hands is 20% likely. And let's say that Villain will only cap with 88 half the time, and the other half he'll just call:

(0.30*2) + (0.30*) - (0.40*2) = 0.1

A razor thin +EV edge.

If Villain starts capping anywhere less than half the time with 88, then we start getting into a -EV situation. And that's if we keep 99 weighted at only 40%.

I honestly believe that we should be weighting the single 99 at least 50% here given all the action Villain has given us so far. And I honestly think that we can assume Villain will not cap with his 88 anywhere close to 50% of the time given all of the action that Hero has given so far.

So I stand by the fact that I think 3betting here is anywhere from a slightly negative -EV situation to a relatively large -EV situation.

[bernie]

Sierra,
I agree with what you're saying. What I don't agree with is:
[ QUOTE ]
So I stand by the fact that I think 3betting here is anywhere from a slightly negative -EV situation to a relatively large -EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a relatively large -EV situation in the longrun. The situation doesn't come up enough for it to have that significant of an impact. I'd agree more if the OP had 88 instead of the 2nd nut.

b

[naMruM]

Grunch. You missed a bet preflop ;-)

This should really go on BBV...

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a relatively large -EV situation in the longrun. The situation doesn't come up enough for it to have that significant of an impact. I'd agree more if the OP had 88 instead of the 2nd nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay - large is definitely a relative term here obviously. I just meant that it's often -EV in the range of maybe -0.5 to -1 BB.

And you're right, it doesn't happen often enough to make a big long term impact. But situations similar to this, where you have an extremely strong hand against someone else who has an extremely strong hand, happen often enough that "just keep capping" shouldn't be the default play if someone has shown themselves to be a competent player.

I guess to me it seems like such an good time to slow down after the river raise that I was surprised so many people advocate 3betting so easily here.

[Mattafuga]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess to me it seems like such an good time to slow down after the river raise that I was surprised so many people advocate 3betting so easily here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't an easy bet at the time. I was 90% sure he had pocket 9's, and I'm an optimist. But being an optimist wouldn't let me believe he caught the case 9 he needed to win it.

[Chipspin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess to me it seems like such an good time to slow down after the river raise that I was surprised so many people advocate 3betting so easily here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't an easy bet at the time. I was 90% sure he had pocket 9's, and I'm an optimist. But being an optimist wouldn't let me believe he caught the case 9 he needed to win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were only 90% sure, then 3-betting would be correct. Oh, and I would never put the guy on quads. Limit or NL, I'm getting fully stacked with your hand, everytime, period. Too often the guy has a great, but worse hand than you.

But of course, this has happened to all of us. It definitely doesn't imply that you misplayed on any street.

Also, not sure if I've thought about this before, but I don't know if being "optimistic" is generally a positive trait in a poker player. I think you want to try to be fairly neutral.

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It wasn't an easy bet at the time. I was 90% sure he had pocket 9's, and I'm an optimist. But being an optimist wouldn't let me believe he caught the case 9 he needed to win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were only 90% sure, then 3-betting would be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you are 90% sure that the guy has 99, then 3betting is absolutely horrible!

Even if he caps with worse hands and only calls with 99, (which is the exact opposite of what he would most likely do, and is the best case scenario for Hero), then 3betting when you are 90% sure you are behind is a HUGE -EV play: -0.7 BB to be exact.

I can't put Villain on 99 with 90% certainty here, but I'd probably say somewhere between 60% and 75%

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
But situations similar to this, where you have an extremely strong hand against someone else who has an extremely strong hand, happen often enough that "just keep capping" shouldn't be the default play if someone has shown themselves to be a competent player.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Otherwise, you're ignoring the other player completely. Which isn't good and could bleed into other situations.

But if this player is known to be able to jam a lesser hand, like 88 on here, then I can see it as a much easier 3 bet.

Say you just call, and he turns over 88. Ok, ya missed a bet at that point, but the next time, I'd be 3 betting him on the river now knowing he's capable of it.

Now if this is the type of player where you've seen him just call with 2nd nut, or even a nut hand(yes, this happens) then it's a different situation. He'd be more likely to have the quads here.

I posted a hand in a response in another thread awhile ago where I went 4 bets on a river with a more passive player when I had (running)quads and she had the low boat. I was kind of suprised. However, a factor could've also been how I played my hand during it. Some passives will put you on a hand and not stray from it. Especially when they have a great hand themselves. They can be a little blinded by it.

b

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
But if this player is known to be able to jam a lesser hand, like 88 on here, then I can see it as a much easier 3 bet.

Say you just call, and he turns over 88. Ok, ya missed a bet at that point, but the next time, I'd be 3 betting him on the river now knowing he's capable of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true. The more that we can narrow our reads on specific players, the better we can get at properly weighting all the hands that we put in an opponent's hand range. And the better decisions we can make.

Good post.

[Chipspin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if this player is known to be able to jam a lesser hand, like 88 on here, then I can see it as a much easier 3 bet.

Say you just call, and he turns over 88. Ok, ya missed a bet at that point, but the next time, I'd be 3 betting him on the river now knowing he's capable of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true. The more that we can narrow our reads on specific players, the better we can get at properly weighting all the hands that we put in an opponent's hand range. And the better decisions we can make.

Good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah woah woah. Am I to understand that you think if Villain has played 88 (or even J9) this way, he's "incompetent"?

I think a player who just called down the turn with 88 is a bit weak, honestly. Sure, with 88 I just call the river 3-bet, but I'm not slowing down on the flop or the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are 90% sure he has 99, then 3-betting the river is a bad play.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose this is true assuming that the other 10% will not cap. If they will, however, then 3-betting isn't a bad play. Big assumption, I guess.