Stud hi: What's your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?

[Spladle]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why do I observe more (apparently) light raising and vbetting in short-handed stud games? Do you not observe that as well? Are all these short-handed players playing incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's likely that you've never observed good players in a full-ring setting with a high ante.

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to see that simulation. I can get different categorical equity measures for different classes of hands, but only by using the twodimes calculator, and only one example at a time, and there is no information about frequency, which would tell us about the range as a whole. I don't see .600 as a realistic aggregate result, but I don't mind being proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a program that performs such simulations. I forget what it's called. MM uses it I think. He posted this result earlier in the thread and I have been assuming that it is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think, in the long run as played, not as a hot-and-cold simulation, these hands win more than they lose?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
We can basically never raise with two pair, but the Ace can often induce a bet and check-raise with two pair or concealed trips. The only way to defeat that is to play super passively, which guarantees that we win the minimum. Since there is doubt about the villain's holding, and an expressed willingness to fold to a scary board, we become bluffable later in the hand, when it is more incorrect to fold a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]
This simply isn't true. We can raise any time we like. We can check behind with one pair if checked to. Or we can bet and fold to a check-raise if the ace is bad enough to only make that play when we're crushed. We can bluff. The reason we fold with one pair on later streets against scary boards is because our equity will not be favorable against the range of hands that he could hold even considering the money already in the pot. If our opponent holds a weak hand very often in this situation it will be because he made an error on third street by calling our re-raise too loosely. So it's okay to fold in these spots, even though it seems as though you're being exploited, because you're really not. He had to put in too much money as too big a dog to count on making a winner or developing a scary board while we failed to improve often enough for continuing on third to be profitable.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you're right, the hand isn't over. If you play good on the later streets, you can play looser on 3rd. If you play bad on the later streets, you should play tighter on 3rd. However, even if you play bad and expect to lose a little later in the hand, (85)8 is simply too strong in this situation to fold. Ed Miller used to talk about this when trashing other low-limit hold 'em books. Beginning (bad) players should raise more pre-flop because they expect to lose money later in the hand, so they should exploit thin equity edges pre-flop. Stoxtrader mentions in his new book that you should be more inclined to three-bet hands like A9o that suffer from reverse implied odds so as to exploit your equity edge while you have it. Howard Lederer wrote an article for Full Tilt awhile back talking about the same hand, but in a no-limit setting. Late position raiser, short stack, A9o, yadda yadda yadda, arrr-in. A9o is ahead of the raiser's range, but you'll lose money playing it post-flop, so push your edge while you have it.

All of these considerations apply to this hand. I was a little hesitant to "appeal to authority" but I think you'll probably be more likely to believe them than me, and anyway this isn't [censored] debate, it's just a poker forum.

[ QUOTE ]
The "+EV situation" cachet seems to ignore these playing circumstances and just assumes a passive hot-and-cold call-down, though very few of us are willing to play poker that way. The OP strategy essentially advises giving up on the river (or Fifth) with one small pair, but that defeats the predicate assumption that one small pair is "ahead of the range." The equity sims certainly do not calculate these "incorrect" folds into the figure, and as such are optimistic, if one follows the proposed strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've misunderstood. Calling down and giving up on the river is only correct if three bets went in on third and you know for a fact that your opponent has 88 beaten on third.

When you re-raise third, you're usually not going to get three-bet. Much of the time he'll call, check/call fourth, and check/fold fifth. Or maybe he'll check/fold fourth or check/call fifth and sixth, check the river, and 88 will be good. Or maybe he'll check/call the river and 8s up will be good. Or maybe he'll check/raise at some point and you'll call down and get shown a better hand, or maybe a bluff. Or you'll fold to the check-raise. Or you'll call the check-raise but fold sixth because his board improves.

What we're talking about here is how to play the later streets when you're opponent three-bets third with a wider range than just hands that beat 88 (let's say any totally live 3-flush or pocket pair). Now, you're still a dog when he three-bets, but not by so much that auto-folding the river is correct if he'll fire every street unimproved (which he is correct to do if you'll auto-fold the river unimproved).

You're right, the hand isn't over, but unless your opponent is much better than you, he won't make up enough ground on the later streets for folding third to be correct. If you're much better than your opponent, you could even get away with playing some really trashy hands in this situation. However, in order to arrive at what we hope will be close to game-theoretically optimal solutions, we tend to use hot-and-cold equity calculations, since solving perfect play for the later streets is just impossible. These equity calculations ignore implied odds, reverse implied odds, and differences in skill between opponents. Fortunately, when we are aware that these factors will be relevant, we can modify the amount of equity that will be necessary to make certain early-street plays. It's not perfect, but it's the best we can do.

Poker is hard.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, tell me why all that is wrong. The bit before about the clumping was interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, you're not exactly wrong. When playing against exploitably tight (bad) players, or with a small ante, folding third can be correct. That just isn't the situation we're talking about here.