Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

Say you're in a full game and everyone folds to a live A, which completes into you with (8s5c)8d and the 2h BI.

IMO you have a mandatory reraise here as you should be significantly ahead of the A's range, and you have a substantial amount of fold equity (specifically he should fold any non-pair, non-3-flush, non-overcards).

But say after reraising the A 3-bets you.

What is your general plan if...

1. You're sure this means he has AA.
2. You think he very likely has AA but he could have a few hands you currently beat (like A22 or AK9s).

It seems to me that if you know for sure he has AA the best play here is to call all the way down to 7th unless he visibly improves or your cards are super dead on 5th, and then fold 7th if you have not made two pair.

But if you think there's an outside chance he has a hand you beat you can't fold 7th. I wonder if it's correct to fold 5th in these cases, even though the pot is really huge, if you have not developed a somewhat favorable board.

Actually as I write this I think I have convinced myself that you should fold 5th in this latter scenario unless your board has developed somewhat well (e.g. a 3 flush).

It just feels really painful to me to fold on 5th when there are about 5 big bets in there. Stud is such a pot odds sensitive game.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

I don't think your split Eights with a little kicker is significantly ahead of a raising Ace's range: pair not necessarily smaller than Eights w/Ace kicker, Aces, Three-flush, three overcards, trips, AKx.

I think the raise is unnecessary because the B-I is probably folding and you'll have it heads-up regardless. I actually think playing at all is bad, since the pot is small and you will not know if two small pair is ahead with any certainty.

Two small is a payoff hand anyway. Why try to make a hand that costs you money when you make it and also when you don't. Fold Third for free and move on.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that if you know for sure he has AA the best play here is to call all the way down to 7th unless he visibly improves or your cards are super dead on 5th, and then fold 7th if you have not made two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this makes the most sense.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you think there's an outside chance he has a hand you beat you can't fold 7th. I wonder if it's correct to fold 5th in these cases, even though the pot is really huge, if you have not developed a somewhat favorable board.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of an article I've been meaning to write for several months.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Say you're in a full game and everyone folds to a live A, which completes into you with (8s5c)8d and the 2h BI.

IMO you have a mandatory reraise here as you should be significantly ahead of the A's range, and you have a substantial amount of fold equity (specifically he should fold any non-pair, non-3-flush, non-overcards).


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that you have a mandatory reraise here with any playable hand? If not, how do you avoid giving away the strength of your hand? If your strategy is to call down anyways, wouldn't you be better off calling sometimes with your medium-strength hands that have potential showdown possibilities unimproved or lightly improved and semibluff-raising with some worse hands (as well as your best ones) where you want to maximize fold equity?

If your opponent will always continue with a bet on fourth (and perhaps fifth) if you just call, what about sometimes delaying your raise until a later street? Just because a reraise might be +EV (and I'm not claiming that it is), a delayed raise might be more +EV?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say you're in a full game and everyone folds to a live A, which completes into you with (8s5c)8d and the 2h BI.

IMO you have a mandatory reraise here as you should be significantly ahead of the A's range, and you have a substantial amount of fold equity (specifically he should fold any non-pair, non-3-flush, non-overcards).


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that you have a mandatory reraise here with any playable hand? If not, how do you avoid giving away the strength of your hand? If your strategy is to call down anyways, wouldn't you be better off calling sometimes with your medium-strength hands that have potential showdown possibilities unimproved or lightly improved and semibluff-raising with some worse hands (as well as your best ones) where you want to maximize fold equity?

If your opponent will always continue with a bet on fourth (and perhaps fifth) if you just call, what about sometimes delaying your raise until a later street? Just because a reraise might be +EV (and I'm not claiming that it is), a delayed raise might be more +EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the thinking here. If you say you are going to see the river with your 8s and no kicker ( I think I go with electrical on this one and fold this a majority of the time), I think sometimes waiting until 4th or 5th to raise can be a good play...unless you improve you get to act last. If villain is on a total bluff, he might give up right away to a raise (though that seems very rare). If you are going to see the river regardless, might as well buy a free card if you want one. If you get 3 bet you can probably fold.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

I think folding 3rd has to be wrong here. If I'm folding 3rd here the A should be completing 100% and showing a huge profit.

As it stands I think the A should be raising a very large % anyway, which is why I think the reraise is profitable.

The hands you listed, except AKx, are all the hands he will be calling my raise with. But that ignores all the hands he'll be folding (any non-hand that has a card equal to or below 8).

I think just calling is a lot more defensible than folding, but I still don't like it because it lets him catch a hand, or catch a favorable board and force me to fold FTOP incorrectly on 5th.

BTW 885 is a 60/40 favorite over a random A upcard. (Though of course the A should not necessarily be raising 100%).

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

You may be right about the flat-call. The reason I am reluctant to do it though is that I think we have substantial fold equity on 3rd, and also I think our opponent has substantial fold-equity if we just call and let him keep bluffing when he catches some semi-scare cards.

As for the possiblity of folding I talked about that in another post. I really don't see how eight's can possibly be a fold here. If we're folding 8's we're giving the A a hugely profitable steal spot which I don't think is warranted just by having a A up.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think folding 3rd has to be wrong here. If I'm folding 3rd here the A should be completing 100% and showing a huge profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do we care what the A's profit is? All he is taking from us is our ante, and we in turn will take the antes when we are in the same spot or take his chips down the line.

Certainly if you knew all he had was a random A and we were a 60/40 favorite then raise, but how can you know that? Some portion of the time we are crushed, some portion he may have a smaller pair with a bigger kicker, 3 flush with high cards, etc. It just seems like more often than not you get to the river with the 8s and make two baby pair for the crying call and set yourself back 5BB instead of just moving on to the next hand. I don't think anyone's PT stats would show them all that far in the black, if at all, with hands like this.

If it was someone I played a lot of hands with and knew their tendancies then all this might be out the window.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

The point is not that we care what the A's profit is, but that if it is abnormally high in this situation it indicates that we are playing exploitably tight.

Of all the hands you listed the only ones that are bad for us are overpairs to 88 (or roll-ups). These are just not going to be that prevalent in any solid player's distribution here.

Really your argument seems to be that this is a high variance low EV play, which I think is never an acceptable argument in poker. You should be arguing that it is -EV, and I don't see how it can be.

Put yourself in the A's spot. Everyone folds to you and there remain an 8 up and the 2 bring-in. You are getting 1.9:1 on a completion.

What % of your hands are you completing here? Do you really think the 885 should be folding behind you?

I think maybe a lot of you guys are used to playing loose ring game stud where these situations are not common so you can get away with playing them too tight. To me the idea of folding a pair of 8's to someone in that favorable of a steal position is mind-boggling.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

I say either raise or fold in this situation. And lean toward fold after he 3 bets.

The only argument I would make for a calldown would be if I intended to raise on a later street.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say either raise or fold in this situation. And lean toward fold after he 3 bets.

The only argument I would make for a calldown would be if I intended to raise on a later street.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think you can fold to a 3-bet simply because of pot odds.

Assuming his 3-bet means AA with a random kicker, you are getting close to correct pot odds to blindly call him down all the way.

Considering that you can improve your effective odds by folding on later streets depending on how the cards break, and that you have implied odds from when you happen to make a big hand, I think you have to call after his 3-bet puts almost 7 small bets in the pot.

That and folding to the 3-bet is hugely exploitable.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

EZ call. A fold or raise, and then folding to a 3 bet is just bad poker. Calling, with position, is the play. Its one of the few times that a call can produce a "free card".

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
EZ call. A fold or raise, and then folding to a 3 bet is just bad poker. Calling, with position, is the play. Its one of the few times that a call can produce a "free card".

[/ QUOTE ]

I can live with this. :-)

Do you raise if your pair is larger, like TT or JJ or something?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

5JJ Vs 588. Not much difference. It could influence a 4th or 5th street raise depending on the A's board cards. Still call

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think folding 3rd has to be wrong here. If I'm folding 3rd here the A should be completing 100% and showing a huge profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do we care what the A's profit is? All he is taking from us is our ante

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem is, it's not our ante anymore. It's part of the pot. But he is stealing from us (if it's a naked A), because if only 3 players have cards left then we each own a share of that pot. If we play too tightly, we lose our share too often.

BTW, did anyone ask what the total antes were in this hand?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW 885 is a 60/40 favorite over a random A upcard. (Though of course the A should not necessarily be raising 100%).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think he has a "random" quality hand and is on a pure steal 85+ percent of the time, then you're even money and it doesn't matter if you play or not. I don't think that's the case with most opponents. I know it isn't the case with me. I am doing something other than stealing 15+ percent of the time, that's for sure. And if it is true that we're sacrificing profit, it's a tiny marginal profit from the equity in the ante pool. Subtract the rake and there's even less reason to fight over small potatoes.

[edit: after typing this, I'm not sure it makes sense. 0.60 * 0.85 = 0.51 I'm going to leave it for the purposes of discussion, but I will probably post a more reasoned argument when I have time to think about it more.]

Folding Third also avoids the general bad taste marginal hands leave you with on later streets -- you can never be certain you're ahead, so you can never extract full value from them (who wants to play for a cap with eights-and-fives?), and it's ridiculously easy to get run down if you are momentarily ahead.

You have been dealt a crappy hand, and it's okay to fold a crappy hand for free, especially when so many better opportunities present themselves.

If you're playing three-handed, that's a different story.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point is not that we care what the A's profit is, but that if it is abnormally high in this situation it indicates that we are playing exploitably tight.

[/ QUOTE ]
After thinking about it, I can express my thoughts a little better. You are afraid folding is a FTOP error, so you don't want to fold. You raise. Given even a very high percentage of the Ace's hands being Axx, he is being offered acceptable odds to play, and when he does choose to play, he will often have you in very bad shape. So, your raise is unlikely to induce an error in his play, and when it does it is a small error, but the raise itself can be an error on your part, and when it is, it will be a large error compounded over many streets. Folding third can only ever be a small error (relinquishing your equity in the ante pool), and that will be the case only some of the time.

The raise creates a situation where you cannot offer him unfavorable odds almost regardless of his holding. I think this is exploitable moreso than folding.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

Electrical

"If you're playing three-handed, that's a different story."

But we are playing 3 handed, BUT with 8 antes. The "different story" statement I don't get, because its this type of marginal play that makes the difference in winning and losing over the long run. You have to play these hands well, at the best price. If you don't, then you get no action when you do play.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Electrical

"If you're playing three-handed, that's a different story."

But we are playing 3 handed, BUT with 8 antes. The "different story" statement I don't get, because its this type of marginal play that makes the difference in winning and losing over the long run. You have to play these hands well, at the best price. If you don't, then you get no action when you do play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was going to say the exact same thing regarding antes.

I don't mean this to be disparaging at all, as I am (obviously) far from an expert at stud hi, but I think a lot of the 2+2 stud posters play good +EV games in a stud ring game while making significant mistakes in the shorthanded situations.

Another way of putting it, electrical, is that if you think folding 88 is proper here there is no question you should be stealing 100% with the A up.

You will be taking it down, versus proper-playing opponents far far more than the 1 in 3 or so you need for an immediate profit.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is not that we care what the A's profit is, but that if it is abnormally high in this situation it indicates that we are playing exploitably tight.

[/ QUOTE ]
After thinking about it, I can express my thoughts a little better. You are afraid folding is a FTOP error, so you don't want to fold. You raise. Given even a very high percentage of the Ace's hands being Axx, he is being offered acceptable odds to play, and when he does choose to play, he will often have you in very bad shape. So, your raise is unlikely to induce an error in his play, and when it does it is a small error, but the raise itself can be an error on your part, and when it is, it will be a large error compounded over many streets. Folding third can only ever be a small error (relinquishing your equity in the ante pool), and that will be the case only some of the time.

The raise creates a situation where you cannot offer him unfavorable odds almost regardless of his holding. I think this is exploitable moreso than folding.

[/ QUOTE ]


I understand what you're saying here but IMO he will be making an FTOP error in calling with a significant portion of his steal hands, and he will know this, so he will fold them.

Even though he is correct in so folding, this is better than the alternative of giving him a free card. (So I am arguing, Poker CPA thinks otherwise and he may be right.)

This is similar to a resteal in heads-up stud, where the % of the time our opponent will be folding is a function of how high our upcard is when we reraise.

For example if it's heads up stud and our opponent raises with a K versus our 2, and we reraise, he will fold very rarely, and thus I never reraise here as it never accomplishes anything unless we have a monster and we don't want to give our monsters away so easily.

In the same spot if we had a 9 up he will fold quite a lot to our reraise.

I think the A is in a favorable enough steal spot, and 8 is high enough, that we have a signficant amount of outright fold equity.

If I thought the A were only raising like 65% of his hands here I think I would like a flat call, given the above considerations.

But when everyone folds to a live A looking at an 8 and a 2 in a full ring game, I expect him to be raising a ton, probably at least 80%.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

electrical,

You do realize that because of the money in the pot, we should continue to play even if we are a dog against the raiser's range, right? Because it seems like you do not. If we are actually ahead of the raiser's range then folding is just laughably bad.

[ QUOTE ]
And if it is true that we're sacrificing profit, it's a tiny marginal profit from the equity in the ante pool. Subtract the rake and there's even less reason to fight over small potatoes.

[/ QUOTE ]
This just is not how the best players think. If a play is sub-optimal then you should not make it. Also in reasonably-sized games the rake comprises a miniscule percentage of the pot and can effectively be ignored.

This line, by the way

[ QUOTE ]
If you're playing three-handed, that's a different story.

[/ QUOTE ]

indicates a gross misunderstanding of how stud is played. You should be much more inclined to fold in a three-handed game than in an eight-handed game. This is just common sense.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

"But when everyone folds to a live A looking at an 8 and a 2 in a full ring game, I expect him to be raising a ton, probably at least 80%"

Anything less than 100%, that player will be crushed by a solid stud player.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even though he is correct in so folding, this is better than the alternative of giving him a free card. (So I am arguing, Poker CPA thinks otherwise and he may be right.)

[/ QUOTE ]
The fun thing about poker is that it's simply impossible to solve. Basically the correct play here depends not only on your opponent's third street range, but how he will play on the later streets. Optimal strategy would probably indicate randomly calling or raising in this situation a certain % of the time (since optimal strategy assumes optimal opponents), but if we know how our opponent deviates from optimal strategy, then exploitation is possible (and preferable).

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

It depends on what kind of mistakes he's apt to make later in the hand. If he's solid and not apt to make any then I'm much more apt to fold. If he's apt to give me cheaper cards than he should and not punish then I'm more apt to play on.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is not that we care what the A's profit is, but that if it is abnormally high in this situation it indicates that we are playing exploitably tight.

[/ QUOTE ]
After thinking about it, I can express my thoughts a little better. You are afraid folding is a FTOP error, so you don't want to fold. You raise. Given even a very high percentage of the Ace's hands being Axx, he is being offered acceptable odds to play, and when he does choose to play, he will often have you in very bad shape. So, your raise is unlikely to induce an error in his play, and when it does it is a small error, but the raise itself can be an error on your part, and when it is, it will be a large error compounded over many streets. Folding third can only ever be a small error (relinquishing your equity in the ante pool), and that will be the case only some of the time.

The raise creates a situation where you cannot offer him unfavorable odds almost regardless of his holding. I think this is exploitable moreso than folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's times like this when I wish propokertools offerred a stud simulator. Their model for razz is awesome, and while 2dimes is a lovely and faithful site, typing in ranges and watching the sim spit out results is a great luxury.

That said, if Vil has AAx (or a wired overpair), you're a 2:1 dog. If it's a steal, you're a 2:1 fave. Anything else (other than trips) is somewhere in between. If you're worried about FTOP mistakes, ask yourself this: If he did show me AA, how would I play it? If he showed me 42 rainbow in the hole, how would I play it? If the answer is the same, then you have your answer. Except of course if you're lousy at hand reading, then just fold and accept the fact that you're unlikely to ever beat this game.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on what kind of mistakes he's apt to make later in the hand. If he's solid and not apt to make any then I'm much more apt to fold. If he's apt to give me cheaper cards than he should and not punish then I'm more apt to play on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Folding third is basically never correct. The decision is between calling and raising.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're worried about FTOP mistakes, ask yourself this: If he did show me AA, how would I play it? If he showed me 42 rainbow in the hole, how would I play it? If the answer is the same, then you have your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer to these two questions is never the same. In the first scenario you would fold or call depending on the size of the pot. In the second you would always raise.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

Excellent work SG. I like it because its so simple.

So Spladle make a decision, you only have 10 seconds. Call or raise?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're worried about FTOP mistakes, ask yourself this: If he did show me AA, how would I play it? If he showed me 42 rainbow in the hole, how would I play it? If the answer is the same, then you have your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer to these two questions is never the same. In the first scenario you would fold or call depending on the size of the pot. In the second you would always raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you always raise if you have split eights and you know he has (24)A. If he would fold to a raise, but would auto-bet fourth, wouldn't calling on third be the correct play?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think folding 3rd has to be wrong here. If I'm folding 3rd here the A should be completing 100% and showing a huge profit.

As it stands I think the A should be raising a very large % anyway, which is why I think the reraise is profitable.

The hands you listed, except AKx, are all the hands he will be calling my raise with. But that ignores all the hands he'll be folding (any non-hand that has a card equal to or below 8).


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm lazy, so I admit I haven't tried to figure this out yet. If the ace is completing 100% and folding to a raise as much you suggest, have you figured out how close to an automatic profit you are if you are raising with a random 8 vs a random A that folds "non-hands" to a raise?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

Before I elaborate, I want to say I totally love this discussion, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to participate in it. It is about my favorite thing in the world next to scooping.

I also want to get two things out of the way: If I hold the Ace in the steal position described, I will be completing a great majority of the time, regardless of my cards. The point I was trying to make is that the strength of the hand is not purely random, because I will fold some dead hands regardless, and some others against certain opponents in favor of saving bullets for getting into confrontations with weaker players. I also think distribution prevents me from holding a "pure crap" hand in this position often enough to make playing an underpair against me hot-and-cold a no-brainer. More about that below.

[ QUOTE ]
Electrical

"If you're playing three-handed, that's a different story."

But we are playing 3 handed, BUT with 8 antes. The "different story" statement I don't get, because its this type of marginal play that makes the difference in winning and losing over the long run. You have to play these hands well, at the best price. If you don't, then you get no action when you do play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware that I am not expert at this game, but this particular scenario and conclusion cconfuses me. Playing short-handed, I see much more action put in with marginal hands, and this makes sense intuitively: When you play three-handed, you have less than half the chance of running into a good hand, versus a full table, because there are fewer players who might pick up a good hand. Marginal holdings improve their relative strength short-handed. I see similar things said about other games on this forum all the time, so I don't think I'm out on a limb here. As an example, you see a lot of raises and re-raises put-in during heads-up Hold-em matches with holdings much weaker than you would see in full-ring blind battles, and that is a nearly analogous situation.

That five of the eight opponents at a full table have chosen not to play makes this presumed steal a reverse Monte Hall puzzle. Your group of opponents is still much more likely to have a good hand among them, and that group chance is condensed down to the last two opponents, one of whom has just raised into your Eights with an Ace showing.

Ignoring playing history and other information (which, as others have noted is more important), you are going to run into a decent hand there more often than at a table which is seated short-handed, because among the larger number of opponents at the table, you are more likely to run into a good hand somewhere.

If that is incorrect, please someone tell me why.

The extra antes offset that some, but stealing the antes is something you can do cheaply as the opportunities happen upon you (for example when you have a live Ace in late position and there is only an Eight and a Deuce left to get through), rather than spending five BB chasing them against an aggressor. I would much rather be stealing than defending in this hand for that reason.

I should explain something here. I think the live Ace should probably be completing here almost all the time. I make a distinction between the Ace completing for value, as a semi-bluff steal and a pure steal with a hand the eights dominate.

If the presumed stealer isn't stealing with a crap hand the overwhelming majority of the time, then raising with (85)8 can't be mandatory.

Is a pure crap hand that often even possible? Let's define a crap hand as having two unpaired hole cards, one of them an undercard to an Eight, and not a three-flush. Is that an overwhelming majority of possible holdings? It seems like we're accounting the first-rate Razz hands, plus a few more.

Without parsing it out, I don't think that is an overwhelming majority of possible Ace hands. I know that when I complete in a steal position, I often think my hand will play well against the remaining opponents even if they have some kind of little hand (the situation we're describing), and I don't think I am being dealt-to from a special deck.

Even if the villain thinks he is stealing, he may be doing so with a hand that isn't worse than a 3:2 dog, and the Eights are conveniently offering him better odds than that.

It seems to boil down to how often we believe the Ace is stealing with a hand we beat, and hands he might fold incorrectly. Everyone but me seems to think it is almost all the time. I know that when I'm stealing I don't hold a crap hand nearly that often, and I don't assume my unknown opponents do. I may be raising almost all the time, but it doesn't seem like my hand is pure Razz crap the overwhelming majority of the time.

Which brings us to the players. Certain opponents I do play back at, based on prior play, and I'll be happy to go to war with Eights against them. They will shoot themselves in the foot pretty regularly, and I want to be in the hand when they do it. That's why statements like "call 100 percent of the time" or "raise 100 percent of the time" make me uncomfortable. Sure, there are games where I will re-steal 100 percent of the time, or play back with Eights 100 percent of the time, but played in a vaccuum, or against unknowns, I tend to avoid situations where the payoff is small relative to the risk, and I don't see how card distribution can make us a strong enough favorite to overcome the substantial multi-BB losses we incur when we blindly call down to fold the river or make a payoff hand here.

Is it good poker to risk $100 for a possible extra nickle, when there will be a later opportunity to risk the $100 to make an extra $200? Possibly, in an absolute sense, but everyone's preferences in gambling form a spectrum, and I only have about one percent gamble in me. I think I can attack weak players profitably without getting stuck in awkward situations against unknowns, so I tend to play that way.

For those who suggest raising back with Eights, is there a split pair+kicker combination that you wouldn't play back with? Deuces with a Trey? Where do you draw the line?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think folding 3rd has to be wrong here. If I'm folding 3rd here the A should be completing 100% and showing a huge profit.

As it stands I think the A should be raising a very large % anyway, which is why I think the reraise is profitable.

The hands you listed, except AKx, are all the hands he will be calling my raise with. But that ignores all the hands he'll be folding (any non-hand that has a card equal to or below 8).


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm lazy, so I admit I haven't tried to figure this out yet. If the ace is completing 100% and folding to a raise as much you suggest, have you figured out how close to an automatic profit you are if you are raising with a random 8 vs a random A that folds "non-hands" to a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]


You're far from an automatic profit, just intuitively.

I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

I just did some quick calculations and got that that's 18%.

That number is a bit smaller than I would have guessed. I think I would have put it at around 25%.

IMO the value of reraising may be more that it protects us from getting bluffed out when our opponent catches semi-scary cards in a small pot than that it protects from free cards from hands that would have folded to our reraise.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

I just did some quick calculations and got that that's 18%.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sort of figure (for pure crap stealing hands) I was expecting based on not thinking about it too hard, and it suggests to me that raising with Eights is far from automatic.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent work SG. I like it because its so simple.

So Spladle make a decision, you only have 10 seconds. Call or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks CPA. Simple is my middle name [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So Spladle make a decision, you only have 10 seconds. Call or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the ante/bring-in?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're worried about FTOP mistakes, ask yourself this: If he did show me AA, how would I play it? If he showed me 42 rainbow in the hole, how would I play it? If the answer is the same, then you have your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer to these two questions is never the same. In the first scenario you would fold or call depending on the size of the pot. In the second you would always raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you always raise if you have split eights and you know he has (24)A. If he would fold to a raise, but would auto-bet fourth, wouldn't calling on third be the correct play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if the ante is $500, the BI $1, and the betting $2/$4!

Obviously the size of the pot and how your opponent will play the later streets is relevant to how you should play a hand. However, if we have no knowledge of those factors (and in the example you gave the only things we knew were our cards and our opponent's cards), then the statements I made hold.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am aware that I am not expert at this game, but this particular scenario and conclusion cconfuses me. Playing short-handed, I see much more action put in with marginal hands, and this makes sense intuitively: When you play three-handed, you have less than half the chance of running into a good hand, versus a full table, because there are fewer players who might pick up a good hand. Marginal holdings improve their relative strength short-handed. I see similar things said about other games on this forum all the time, so I don't think I'm out on a limb here. As an example, you see a lot of raises and re-raises put-in during heads-up Hold-em matches with holdings much weaker than you would see in full-ring blind battles, and that is a nearly analogous situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is where you're confused, I think. In HU hold 'em, the pot is the same size pre-flop as it is when there are ten players. However, in HU stud, the pot is smaller than when there are eight players. Therefore, when you hold an ace and are looking at an 8 and a 2 left to act, you should raise more often if five players have folded than if none have.

[ QUOTE ]
That five of the eight opponents at a full table have chosen not to play makes this presumed steal a reverse Monte Hall puzzle. Your group of opponents is still much more likely to have a good hand among them, and that group chance is condensed down to the last two opponents, one of whom has just raised into your Eights with an Ace showing.

Ignoring playing history and other information (which, as others have noted is more important), you are going to run into a decent hand there more often than at a table which is seated short-handed, because among the larger number of opponents at the table, you are more likely to run into a good hand somewhere.

If that is incorrect, please someone tell me why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether this is true depends on the effect "clumping" has on stud. If we assume that there is none (which isn't true, but calculating the effect is close to impossible) then what you have written is incorrect. The dead cards will make it more or less likely that the remaining up-cards will constitute part of a "playable" hand, but on average this effect cancels out. Playing in a scenario where five unknown hands have folded in a full game is the same as playing in a three-handed game (except for clumping, as mentioned earlier). The only difference is the size of the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
The extra antes offset that some, but stealing the antes is something you can do cheaply as the opportunities happen upon you (for example when you have a live Ace in late position and there is only an Eight and a Deuce left to get through), rather than spending five BB chasing them against an aggressor. I would much rather be stealing than defending in this hand for that reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a reason that re-raising in this spot is known as "re-stealing." It's because against someone who folds to re-raises too often (or who folds later streets against aggression too often), re-raising with virtually any three cards can become correct. Against someone who folds less often it is still correct to play back with hands that have some value but are not necessarily ahead of his range. Obviously, then, with hands that actually are ahead of his range, "re-stealing" will virtually always be correct, since your opponent must call you down even when behind or risk folding incorrectly too often.

[ QUOTE ]
If the presumed stealer isn't stealing with a crap hand the overwhelming majority of the time, then raising with (85)8 can't be mandatory.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is only correct in very small pots. In larger pots it is acceptable to play on with hands that are behind your opponent's range.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to boil down to how often we believe the Ace is stealing with a hand we beat, and hands he might fold incorrectly. Everyone but me seems to think it is almost all the time. I know that when I'm stealing I don't hold a crap hand nearly that often, and I don't assume my unknown opponents do. I may be raising almost all the time, but it doesn't seem like my hand is pure Razz crap the overwhelming majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
What you mean to say is that it boils down to the equity our hand has against the stealer's range. I think MM said somewhere earlier in the thread that we are about a 60/40 favorite here.

[ QUOTE ]
Which brings us to the players. Certain opponents I do play back at, based on prior play, and I'll be happy to go to war with Eights against them. They will shoot themselves in the foot pretty regularly, and I want to be in the hand when they do it. That's why statements like "call 100 percent of the time" or "raise 100 percent of the time" make me uncomfortable. Sure, there are games where I will re-steal 100 percent of the time, or play back with Eights 100 percent of the time, but played in a vaccuum, or against unknowns, I tend to avoid situations where the payoff is small relative to the risk, and I don't see how card distribution can make us a strong enough favorite to overcome the substantial multi-BB losses we incur when we blindly call down to fold the river or make a payoff hand here.

Is it good poker to risk $100 for a possible extra nickle, when there will be a later opportunity to risk the $100 to make an extra $200? Possibly, in an absolute sense, but everyone's preferences in gambling form a spectrum, and I only have about one percent gamble in me. I think I can attack weak players profitably without getting stuck in awkward situations against unknowns, so I tend to play that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your thinking here is flawed. So long as you are playing in games that you are adequately bankrolled for, +EV spots should never be turned down. Against unknowns, you should assume that your opponents play good. Only after you have confirmed that someone plays sub-optimally and determined exactly how their play is sub-optimal should the process of exploitation begin.

Reverse implied odds do not make it correct to fold as a 60/40 favorite in this spot (if we assume that the pot is reasonably sized).

[ QUOTE ]
For those who suggest raising back with Eights, is there a split pair+kicker combination that you wouldn't play back with? Deuces with a Trey? Where do you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't run the sims. Ask someone who has.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Spladle make a decision, you only have 10 seconds. Call or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the ante/bring-in?

[/ QUOTE ]


For the purpose of discussion let's say it's 8-handed 100-200 with 20 ante and 30 bring-in.

Also to anyone who is still reading this thread, say you do reraise the 885, rightly or wrongly. What then is your plan if your opponent 3-bets? Would you agree with what I outlined in my OP?

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think he's folding AK4? A lot of folks won't even fold a razz hand.

Re: Stud hi: What\'s your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

I just did some quick calculations and got that that's 18%.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sort of figure (for pure crap stealing hands) I was expecting based on not thinking about it too hard, and it suggests to me that raising with Eights is far from automatic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if he were to never fold 3rd street, the raise should still show a profit. You're about a 60/40 favorite against his range.