AK unimproved, whats your play?

[Lunar Tweak]

[ QUOTE ]
If we think it's a move what does 3betting the flop accomplish (othen then sometiems getting villian to fold a six out hand)?

[/ QUOTE ]

we can either take a free card on the turn and call river, or bet turn and check river. remember, the objective is to try and get to showdown cheaply and maintain control of the hand. this way it's 2 1/2 bb to showdown vs calling down as hero did in the hand for 3bb. though i think more unlikely online, live players will often throw away a small pair to me when i use this line if i have a good image.

[Paul77]

I fold on the flop after the raise. No back-door flush draw here, seems like a waste to chase especially at lower limits.
Paul

[Fluidity]

Fold to the check raise on the flop. I'd wait to crack him with a better hand.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
If we think it's a move what does 3betting the flop accomplish (othen then sometiems getting villian to fold a six out hand)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reasons I like a three-bet:

We are ahead fairly often here. By three-betting the flop, we charge draws more in the scenario where they would check-raise flop, bet turn, check river. By calling down instead of getting aggressive, we allow villain to choose when he puts in money.

When we're in fact behind, we'd rather put in money earlier in the hand when our equity is higher, then be forced to pay off river bets where we're usually behind. (Villain is generally not bluffing the river more than 50% of the time when he bets). Add to that the fact that we can often see a showdown when behind for 2.5 bb instead of three.


It basically comes down to control the flow of the hand, and the times at which money goes in. Unless we have a really strong reason to believe our opponent is going to bluff all the way down with an inferior hand, we really want the money to go in early regardless of whether we're ahead or not:

-When ahead, we charge villain money to draw which he likely won't put in on the river.

-When behind, we put money in when we have the most equity and keep the total number of bets going in smaller.

[Hobbs.]

please read the following

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...page=&vc=1

[W. Deranged]

Hobbs,

I think this is one of the RARE situations where getting aggressive with overcards makes sense. The paired board means we are more likely to be ahead, and we are also more likely than usual to be up against a draw. We also gain very specific informational value and protection value.

So this may be an exception.

The key point, above all others, though, is the simple fact that we probably have a fair amount of showdown value here.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
please read the following

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...page=&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting thread.

b

[BenA]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont know what these factors are i am determined not to use p tracker. i find that i dont need it

[/ QUOTE ]

Phosix, I've heard you say this quite often, and I agree that any good poker player doesn't NEED PT, but really, if you haven't tried it, how do you know it can't add a slight edge?

That being said, I'm going to voice a big PT complaint. After 80 hands, an AF factor of .8 means absolutely NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! In my experience, the only stats that are meaningful after that small of a small are the really huge ones, because they more accurately assess looseness and agressiveness because the player already in 80 hands has had multiple opportunities to do so. (In other words 52/24/3.5 might tell you something, though still be very inaccurate) But deciding if a player is weak tight, tight agressive, loose passive, you'd be better off just watching them closely, and just don't look at their 12/2/.6 or whatever over 100 hands. They could be a TAG who has just been dealt 100 mostly crappy hands and been unable to push any edges. I'm definitely venting here, but I think in this hand, there were some great strategic arguments about whether to call down or not, but I dismiss all of them that use the stats. I'm just asking that people try to be realistic.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
we are also more likely than usual to be up against a draw.

[/ QUOTE ]
What hand range do you put villian on?

This particular guy is really passive, but even with an average player, say PFA 1.5 or so, I would expect something like this:
Medium pair, 6x, 5x: 80% or so.
Bluff/Overs: 10% or so
OESD (87): less than 10%
Other draws: 73, 97: seldom

Unless I had experience seeing villian push PFRs off a pot in similar flops, I believe calling and folding the turn UI is the best play.

Make this flop 2 suited, or move it up to 98 and I feel differently about a 3-bet.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Phosix, I've heard you say this quite often, and I agree that any good poker player doesn't NEED PT, but really, if you haven't tried it, how do you know it can't add a slight edge?

That being said, I'm going to voice a big PT complaint. After 80 hands, an AF factor of .8 means absolutely NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! In my experience, the only stats that are meaningful after that small of a small are the really huge ones, because they more accurately assess looseness and agressiveness because the player already in 80 hands has had multiple opportunities to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stat alone might mean nothing. But with observation it can mean quite a bit more. This is why it takes much less than 80 hands(usually about 20) to, generally, assess most players in a live game. Because you're watching more closely just what hands he's playing and how he's playing it(along with other factors you may not be privy to online).

If I've been sitting with someone for 2 hours(about 80 hands) in a live game, I have a pretty good idea as to how they play.

I do agree with Phosix that too many seem too dependent on PT and miss some key stuff in analyzing a player.

PT, imo, helps make up edge that's lost during multitabling. I'm not so sure it really adds an edge, while playing, if someone is only playing 1 or 2 tables and they know how to profile opponents.

b