[Chomp]

[ QUOTE ]
Chomp, 60% equity against the 3b range is a decent chunk, and probably enough that you are willing to raise for protection* even if not for value (I doubt that you are ahead of a calling range).

*actually is this valid here? usually i use this phrase to mean bet so that draws are making a mistake by calling. i guess that we could do that here, but we agree that such a mistake is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah Boz, I definitely get what you are saying, but a couple of points:

1. Re: protection. Surely the need for protection is only applicable if we think he will call with the hands we need to protect against: hands like AQ/AJ/66-99 etc. I think we agree that a call from those hands is unlikely. So I think if we bet for protection we get so much "protection" from those hands that we actually get a fold!!

2. Re: equity. Isn't the issue not so much about the naked equity, but rather the best way to maximise that equity? And it seems to me that to do this, we need to adhere to the Fundamental Theorem.

So, raising can easily lead to a FToP mistake: either he folds JJ-/crap, or pushes AK/KK+. Similarly, folding can lead to a FToP mistake as he might have 84o. So, that leaves calling, which allows us react to the flop, which will help us narrow villains range, in that we will know if the AJ+ parts have hit, and we can react accordingly. On the flop that did come down, we can now be sure we are ahead of his range as AA/KK are all we fear, and we are ahead of TT/JJ/AJ+/AK.

I also think that counting hand combos works in our favour.


Bah, I hate this crap. I've been in this situation 1000 times and still have no clue about what to do. Jesus Christ how depressing.