[traz]

[ QUOTE ]
It also negates his bluffing power in the more-than-half the time when an overcard hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, if you are against a habitual 2-barreler then I can see merit in this arguement. However we WANT him to bluff the flop. That's $$$$.

[ QUOTE ]

It also negates the RIO we suffer when our opponent connects with K3 on the K6T board and we pay off flop, turn, and river bets and lose 40 BBs instead of winning 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no RIO here unless you plan on calling down 3 streets, which probably isn't a good idea. 2 streets, maybe, depending on opponent, but then that's when you hve to know your opponent and his 2-barrel tendencies. Yes, risky...but yes, profitable.

[ QUOTE ]

It also prevents him from stealing as much, which is of value to us when we're in the blinds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but 3betting with other hands in other situations achieves the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]

It also earns us more money when we three-bet with KK and AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as above.

[ QUOTE ]


It also disguises our hands more so that our preflop response to a raise doesn't strongly narrow our hand range.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has merit. I agree that our hand becomes quite transparent to a good player. This can be balanced by taking the same line with some other hands and also by doing this against tagfish who don't have a clue anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer starting with strong cards so that when I'm called I'm more likely to be in a happy place down the road when the decision about my stack comes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of my point...once you're called, your hand isn't strong relative to his anymore.



In the end, I'm saying there are different ways to play and there's nothing really wrong with calling provided it fits with your overall gameplan. I just don't want people to think one line is correct and see 99 in the blinds and automatically think 3bet.