Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

[ QUOTE ]
look the point isn't that c/f is bad here, the point is don't [censored] 4bet if you are going to c/f here.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's tons of situations they both could be correct.

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

I think hero has to c c/f. I don`t like your 4bet here.
We are IP and Villain is a tag, so why give him the chance to get rid of the hand we totally domiate? AJ+ and so on.
After calling his 3bet we can call atleast 2 streats. Ife he bets river again we have a hard desicion.

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

xorbie, think about what ur saying dude...

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
look the point isn't that c/f is bad here, the point is don't [censored] 4bet if you are going to c/f here.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's tons of situations they both could be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, in this case, both are correct (or at least more correct than any alternatives given the info posted).

Pre-flop, Hero makes a standard raise from UTG and is called by MP and BTN making for a $54 pot, i.e. tasty squeeze opportunity for SB. With this point in mind, hero has good reason to believe that his hand is ahead SB's range.

Once SB 3-bets, hero can either raise (as played), fold (crazy-weak), or call.

IMO, calling here is not optimal as it will likely create one of two tough situations:

Either

1. Both MP and BTN will also call (as hero has improved their odds) and hero is forced to play a 4-way, $290 pot, OOP with very little info with which to range MP, and even less for BTN.

OR

2. Either MP or BTN go for the re-squeeze.

By 4-betting pre-flop, Hero reps a very big hand and likely folds all but super-premium hands, i.e QQ+,AK. Given the effective stacks, IMO at these limits villain will only re-shove with AA and maybe KK, and if that happens, I think a fold is good. As played, i think hero is correct in assuming that villain's call indicates the very narrow post-flop range of QQ, AK, and maybe KK.

With this range in mind, on that flop hero is playing for a tie at best(barring runner-runner miracles). Thus, c/f would seem to be the best play, IMHO.

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

[ QUOTE ]
xorbie, think about what ur saying dude...

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don`t like your 4bet here.
We are IP and Villain is a tag, so why give him the chance to get rid of the hand we totally dominate?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Because there are two other players in the pot, both of whom have position on us.

2. Because there is already 31bbs in the pot. Lets not get greedy.

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

Xorbie is off..Im much closer with OP, I mean when we 4bet preflop how did we know he wouldn't fold fast. Now that we got here I'm betting...two Js are possible, so is AQs, and we chop with AK. We lose to AA/QQ (and the very rare KK).

Already putting in $210 I think our hand is good enough to put it in.

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think hero has to c c/f. I don`t like your 4bet here.
We are IP and Villain is a tag, so why give him the chance to get rid of the hand we totally domiate? AJ+ and so on.
After calling his 3bet we can call atleast 2 streats. Ife he bets river again we have a hard desicion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bit embarrassing that I misrepresented my position in the OP. I was in a rush.

Anyway, facing what could very likely be a squeeze, to me a 4 bet seems pretty straightfoward here, particularly with two players to act behind. Calling, for one thing, means that junk squeezing hands can outflop me, and higher aces can bluff me on dry boards (maybe, my position is obviously beneficial in this regard). It also means that the two flat callers behind can call a bunch of holdings, particularly pocket pairs, and have position on me after the flop. I just don't want to play AK oop in a huge multiway pot. After my last session I'm resigned to once again moving down in stakes, so I'm happy to defer to you guys as the authority, but calling seems really bad to me here with two players to act behind.

As I say, though, once I'm called, by a player OOP no less, who is deep but not getting value to call for a set, it just seems to me his hand is going to be QQ+, AK more than 90% of the time.

I read something by aba recently talking about having to get it in more lightly the more that's been invested preflop. I think he discusses it in relation to a hand where he 4 bets 89 against PA, flops top pair, then gets it in. But this situation feels different. Unless villain is getting way out of line, and playing badly, IMO, his range absolutely crushes me. If QQ+, AK is an accurate range, the question becomes am I splitting the pot often enough that I have to get it in, because the rest of the time I'm absolutely smoked.

My reasoning, anyhow.

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

im just going to provide a few statistics from poker stove, i won't go into why i dont like calling etc that's already been covered.

pre flop against a range of QQ+ AK, AK has nice equity (60-40). abit of a truism and im sure you're all well aware of this. so by isolating yourself against the villian's tightest of ranges youre not really making a mistake by four betting (considering he will only have a pot sized bet left in his stack, meaning no play. incidentally you have 30 percent equity on blank flops against this range, so if he were to donk bet shove all hands on a 3 5 9r board you have very close to the odds you need for a call). needless to say getting him to fold preflop obviously gets you some value.


post flop however with the board given(K Q 4), assuming he'll call with all hands of the range we have assigned to him(QQ+ AK), you have below odds to get it all in on the flop. 25 percent equity and getting less than 2 to 1. if he folds AK believing he's looking poor against your range however, you can shove i assume.

anyone feel free to correct me.

Re: 2/4: 170bbs deep, 4-bet pot, TPTK... c/f?
 

this is the easiest shove ive ever seen