KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

If we playing full ring and we make a raise from say MP3 with KQo and we get three bet by a CO villian who is fairly reasonable, we put him on TT+ AQs+ AKo, and we call, it's HU and the flop comes K-rag-rag rainbow, thats pretty much the best flop we can reasonably expect right? but we're still a small dog against his range (44/56).

Lets say we decide we will check call all the way and we know this villian will on average, bet all three streets if he has us beat and just the flop and turn if he is behind our current hand. We're playing 1/2 so pot is $15 right now, and we lose another $10 56% of the time and gain $20 the other 44% of the time (15+6-1 for rake). So we make 44*20/100=$8.80 less 56x10/100=$5.60 so make $8.80-$5.60=$3.20 on these flops playing this way if I'm right.

So my question is, is there a better way to play these sorts of situations or is passive right here?

Regards Mack

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

Not really without a tighter read on his 3-bet range or aggression. I think you want a show down more than you want to go b/f against him anywhere.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

This line is fine, because it's most probably a WA/WB situation.

Just one thing to consider - don't you think that the 3-bettor's range is too narrow here? This isn't an EP raise, it's almost a blind steal situation. His 3-betting range is thus probably wider. He could easily be trying to isolate you with a hand like AT or 77.

Use your reads here. Is Villain capable of iso-reraising? What is your image in his eyes, do you steal blinds often? What is your PFR % ?

etc.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

Unless he has a really tight (AA, KK, AK) 3-betting range, I would probably bet out on the flop, and if he merely calls, bet out on the turn and river too. If he raises, however, I'm inclined to call him down.

There's a more than decent chance your TP second-best kicker is good, but there's always the chance he has AA, AK or KK.

This is susceptible to a slowplay, however, so you will need a good read on his 3-betting range...

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

I think the range you are assigning the 3-bettor is more like the 3-betting range of a rock. I think most reasonable players will 3-bet a AQo, AJs, KQs, 99, and 88 a good amount of the time. In your original case I think your call down plan works but I don't think that is a typical range. I don't have pokerstove but I think if you add the hands I suggested then the equity against that range tilts in your favor. In that case I like a flop c/r and a call down if three bet.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

I think this is the correct line since you can view this as WA/WB. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

what about c/c, c/c, bet

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
what about c/c, c/c, bet

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this line for me is that the villain could then bluff raise the river and force us to lay down a winner.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

well c/c c/c b is the classic wa/wb, along with c/c c/c c/c. the question is do we b/f or b/c if we get raised.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

I said WA/WB earlier and got bashed.

check the link here for a mildly interesting counterpoint (that I still disagree with). i didnt feel like arguing so I let it be, but make your own judgement.


I thought we just talked about this

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
I said WA/WB earlier and got bashed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand is heads up and the other one is not.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the range you are assigning the 3-bettor is more like the 3-betting range of a rock. I think most reasonable players will 3-bet a AQo, AJs, KQs, 99, and 88 a good amount of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't automatically think this. OP did not tell us what "reasonable" means. Reasonable my mean that he is fairly tight and does not spew horribly. I'm sure how many people, even reasonable one's will instantly think this is a steal either. Raising in MP3 still has 3 people behind, so you're not raising K9s here typically. Also how does a reasonable person adjust for position and HERO's playing style. If he is observant, he will realize that hero's range is a bit bigger, but also realize that hero is not a spewtard and is not raising super light here. Many players whom I would consider reasonable (tight-semipassives and tight-neutrals easily fall into this catagory), would not be 3betting 88/99/AJs here very often at all. If they are, I want to discover this quickly!

I'd put villian on a range of AQ+,TT+, and possible 99, and an even less possible AJs. I consider myself more than reasonable [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img], and I really don't see myself 3betting KQs often here against a TAG. If hero was a LAG, sure AJ+,KQs,88+ is fine and I do it all the time.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless he has a really tight (AA, KK, AK) 3-betting range, I would probably bet out on the flop, and if he merely calls, bet out on the turn and river too. If he raises, however, I'm inclined to call him down.

There's a more than decent chance your TP second-best kicker is good, but there's always the chance he has AA, AK or KK.

This is susceptible to a slowplay, however, so you will need a good read on his 3-betting range...

[/ QUOTE ]

Donking here is horrible...

1. If he has a hand like TT-QQ, or AQ, why not let him bet and keep betting as much as he will? Donking the flop can let one of these hands get away cheap while drawing thin. Why would e want to do that?
2. If he has AK, KK-AA, he can easily wait until turn/river to raise and then well... that sucks.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

As already said your example is WA/WB and you could c/c,c/c,c/c or c/c,c/c,b/f.

As you think that your opponent would check behind on the river with a weaker hand, I would prefer b/f the river to c/c.

Anyway, I wanted to say that your maths was a little bit incorrect.

1. You assumed that you could win the same amount as you could lose from c/c,c/c,c/c although you assumed that your opponent would check behind the river with a weaker hand.

2. Your cost for playing the hand (postflop) would be your total number of (postflop) bets.

I think that the correct (and perhaps simpler) way of calculating your EV on the flop (using small bets instead of $) is as follows:

1. c/c,c/c,c/c line - EV = (13.5 * 0.45) - 5 = 1.075 sb.

2. c/c,c/c,b/f line - EV = (17.5 * 0.45) - 5 = 2.875 sb.

Obviously, the above EV calculation for the b/f river line, is assuming that your opponent will not raise your river bet as a bluff.

Hope this helps.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]


1. c/c,c/c,c/c line - EV = (13.5 * 0.45) - 5 = 1.075 sb.

2. c/c,c/c,b/f line - EV = (17.5 * 0.45) - 5 = 2.875 sb.

Obviously, the above EV calculation for the b/f river line, is assuming that your opponent will not raise your river bet as a bluff.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you are assuming villain will ALWAYS check on the river in this calculation? Also, the second case is too optimistic, as you are assuming the villain will always just call.

First case, villain should keep on betting most flops 50% of time...

EV = (15.5 * 0.45) - 5 = 1.975 SB

Second case, villain raises 20% of the time, calls otherwise.

EV = 0.8 (17.5 * 0.45) + 0.2 * (0) - 5 = 1.3 SB

----

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I just think that you can't make these math calculations like you know what's gonna happen and you have to account for everything. Personally, I think you can't say anything about our action on the river, because we don't know what the other cards are and as it stands either one is perfectly viable.

Now for the actual question of calling down or c/r flop... mhmmm... eeehmmmm, mmmmm. I guess I defer to others or say: it depends! it's gotta be close, though.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

Assuming villan never raises with a worse hand on the river is kind of iffy, one have assume villan is not a tool and virtually never bluff raises for this to be true.

Also assuming that Villan wont bet QQ on three streets and never 3-barrels is also shady IMO.

All in all, I think c/c and b/f is very close against many Villans and def much closer than in Fantams calculation.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the range you are assigning the 3-bettor is more like the 3-betting range of a rock. I think most reasonable players will 3-bet a AQo, AJs, KQs, 99, and 88 a good amount of the time. In your original case I think your call down plan works but I don't think that is a typical range. I don't have pokerstove but I think if you add the hands I suggested then the equity against that range tilts in your favor. In that case I like a flop c/r and a call down if three bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm I can see the definition of rock has changed a bit since I used to play this long ago. Time was a rock had a VPIP of 5-10% and a PFR of less than 4%, the range I given was a litle tighter than my range (versus this player in this position) I play about 18/10 or close and barely ever cold call.

Thanks for all the points in the thread though, seems I got my line right if the range is correct.

Regards Mack

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the range you are assigning the 3-bettor is more like the 3-betting range of a rock. I think most reasonable players will 3-bet a AQo, AJs, KQs, 99, and 88 a good amount of the time. In your original case I think your call down plan works but I don't think that is a typical range. I don't have pokerstove but I think if you add the hands I suggested then the equity against that range tilts in your favor. In that case I like a flop c/r and a call down if three bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm I can see the definition of rock has changed a bit since I used to play this long ago. Time was a rock had a VPIP of 5-10% and a PFR of less than 4%, the range I given was a litle tighter than my range (versus this player in this position) I play about 18/10 or close and barely ever cold call.

Thanks for all the points in the thread though, seems I got my line right if the range is correct.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I mentioned earlier that I think your range is pretty good.

Re: KQo gets 3 bet OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
As already said your example is WA/WB and you could c/c,c/c,c/c or c/c,c/c,b/f.

As you think that your opponent would check behind on the river with a weaker hand, I would prefer b/f the river to c/c.

Anyway, I wanted to say that your maths was a little bit incorrect.

1. You assumed that you could win the same amount as you could lose from c/c,c/c,c/c although you assumed that your opponent would check behind the river with a weaker hand.

2. Your cost for playing the hand (postflop) would be your total number of (postflop) bets.

I think that the correct (and perhaps simpler) way of calculating your EV on the flop (using small bets instead of $) is as follows:

1. c/c,c/c,c/c line - EV = (13.5 * 0.45) - 5 = 1.075 sb.

2. c/c,c/c,b/f line - EV = (17.5 * 0.45) - 5 = 2.875 sb.

Obviously, the above EV calculation for the b/f river line, is assuming that your opponent will not raise your river bet as a bluff.

Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi I'm not sure if you are referring to me, when you say the maths is incorrect, I'll explain what I was trying to say anyway, basically I was trying to get the correct line if ON AVERAGE he will bet all three streets when ahead of the pair of Ks Q kicker, and bet flop and turn with worse, not that he will always do these actions, I reckon he can check behind on the river with better sometimes and bet with worse sometimes, frequency unknown (yes I know this is important).

I was trying to do this back of an envelope style and it turned into a pretty big spreadsheet.

Thanks for reply.

Regards Mack