[Check_The_Nuts]

[ QUOTE ]
The min-three-bet is silly. Your idea of its value is predicated on the notion that a real three-bet and a weak three-bet appear completely differently to villain, so that he'll be able to escape with lesser hands if you put in a real bet, but will "sense weakness" and shove or call with those same hands if you bet weakly. This is improbable, especially because bet/min-3-bet is the way that a lot of donkeys at these stakes play their monsters.


[/ QUOTE ]

I saw the min3bet moves more at lower limits like 10NL and 25NL. At 50NL there are very few fish on UB who are so bad they still min3bet their monsters. Take this guy for example, he made a real raise on the flop with top two. I don't think it looks particularly strong. Also, I'm fairly certain I had been raising flops really loose this session.

[ QUOTE ]

"Gee, he reraised to $16. Bottom two no good. Muck!"
"Gee, he minreraised me. He's full of it! Shove!"
even a tag wouldn't fold to that min3bet. I'm certain. I'm not sure I'd like the play as much versus a decent player though

For reals? And if you're wrong about that, and I really believe that you are, then the only difference between the weak bet and a strong bet is that you allow draws to play profitably against you. Even if you were to check/fold a club turn, villain can still call correctly (profitably) on the flop with Ac2c. Allowing your opponent to play perfectly against you in that situation is a massive mistake on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the point, I think that his play is extremely unbalanced and he never has a draw. The other difference between the weak bet and the strong bet is I could actually fold after the weak one, but can't do it after the strong one. Obv. the more weighted his range is to draws, the worse my play is. I didn't realize this till now.

Appreciate your post. It was the most thought out reply so far IMO.