Maximum Value on Pocket 3's?

[Ulkis]

PF there is a raise and a re-raise after we limp in - easy fold for me, no harm done, next hand.

[neurotiq]

[ QUOTE ]
PF there is a raise and a re-raise after we limp in - easy fold for me

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, but there are five (!) likely callers behind us after the 3bet. We have plenty of pot odds to continue and try to hit the set here. Remember that odds of hitting the set on the flop are 7.5 to 1. Pot is giving us 9.5 to 1 to make this call (and I'm not even counting implied odds here! -- bear in mind that when we do hit the set against a pf 3bettor, we'll usually get massively paid off since they'll want to showdown their premium hands). This is a situation where we're behind, but we have the odds to call, so we do so in order to make money in the long run.

[lqd78]

i would call the flop raise the turn, bet the river.
being scared of KK , AA is silly. you may loose sometimes to them, but just keep raising with this board.

[RcrdBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
i have a slight objection to your preflop call. in no limit, i feel like small pocket pairs have a much higher implied value, but in limit, when there is only one limper and you are in MP3, i feel that you should avoid limping with that hand because you're not going to win anything unimproved and out of position.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very thoughtful reply, but advocating folding any PP after one or two ep limpers is bad advice at these limits (pretty much most limits). Limping any PP after 2 EP limpers is standard. Also, worrying about being out of position shouldn't be a huge concern here. Hero either makes set or decent draw or folds. If he gets a raise behind it'll be easy to check raise the flop or turn and get paid off big.

As the hand played out hero had 6 opponents to the flop for 3 bets and he's only 7.5-1 against flopping a set.

Facing the LRR is ugly but if you can get 5 opponents that's usually enough to make calling raises PF with PPs profitable.

[glfrjack]

Thanks for your replies, everyone. Should I have used this line of thinking:
"Had someone been slow-playing AA or KK, then they actually saved me money on previous streets, so to call a raise on the river would still have been cheaper than if they had capped behind me on the flop and/or reraised the flop and/or raised the turn."

Do you bet the river because people who slowplay behind you end up saving you bets in the long run?

Am I grasping at straws or is this close to "proper" thinking?