[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I like James' example much more than Elindaur's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neh. Mine is way better.

[ QUOTE ]
In E's hand I don't like it because we have outs and are getting 8:1 on a call. We have four outs to the virtual nuts with the gutshot (and maybe we get paid big if he hit) plus we have an overcard which will often be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself. You can't say that an ace is often good against a player 3-betting a K823 board, and also say that players rarely 3-bet draws. The kind of players that 3-bet KQ will also 3-bet a draw. I don't think you can reasonably argue with this.

So in the two examples, you are giving up a gutshot in one and a two outer in the other if you assume villain will 3-bet only big hands. But in my example, you have much more fold equity. If you think villain will 3-bet aggressively, my example is still better, because there is much less chance that villain will 3-bet with a hand we can beat on a dry 832K board, so we lay down the best hand much less often, while again picking up much more fold equity. In my hand, villain is much less likely to like the turn card as well, making an aggressive 3-bet less frequent.

much much much much much. there. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Having the board be drawy can be a plus if you charge your opponent extra money to beat you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you are charging a draw more? You're not going to bet the river. Raising against an aggressive player who holds a draw is a poor play, in that you are going to get the exact same amount of money in, but risk being pushed off the pot.

This assumes of course that a missed draw will bet the river, but in my experience this is a pretty safe assumption.

-eric