[Kala1928]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limping is fine, but on pairing a 5 (bottom 1/3 of rank range) you need to bet that flop. Free card here is a clear mistake. Plus you're pushing the boundary of reasonable expectation for this hand -- asking for trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the "boundary of reasonable expectation for this hand" ???

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say a reasonable expectation for being folded to A5s in the SB is not a whole lot more than the blinds. So, perhaps the boundary is twice the blinds.

Raising it up 3x bb is your best shot to achieve your expectation. But it opens you up to exploitation if skilled villain knows your blind steal range and is aggressive in triple 3-betting you. If you don't want to play post-flop for 18bb pot, he can fold you perhaps 80% of the time, making his 3-bet move EV+.

Completing is not nearly as exploitable because playing for 6bb pot involves 1/3 risk of playing for 18 bb pot.

Many good players will argue for completing because they hold an advantage over opponent in post-flop play. And predictably that's the direction so many of these threads go: discussions of advanced post-flop play which pile-up assumptions about opponent play in an increasingly fragile manner, attempting to use skill to artifically increase opportunity beyond reason.

I don't think that superiority of post-flop play alone is a good enough reason to complete.

Probably is a good enough reason in a cash game, but in a tournament you can easily find yourself escalated into an outlay way out of proportion to the relative opportunity of A5s OOP single opponent.

So you complete mainly to minimize your exploitability in the metagame. Therefore you should try to take this down on the flop whether you hit or not.

Of course if villain figures this out then you are exploitable on flop. But that's a 2nd-order metagame that villain is much less likely to put you on.

[/ QUOTE ]

read and memorize

oh and lol at triple 3-bet