|
|
#12
08-10-2007, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL500: 98o OESD BTN vs. BB 3bet pot against TAG
[ QUOTE ]
So what you're saying I need to add both light and value 4betting to my game or otherwise just roll over and fold to resteals every time without a good hand? [/ QUOTE ] If you're referring to me, my point was that calling is not great in general. The caveat is unless you call a wide range including AA/KK/AKs and some suited stuff ready to get your stack in. Playing 89o is awful beyond words. There is NO reason to call it. You are hitting NOTHING with 89o. It is 100% bluff. Why not give yourself a chance of SOMETHING - especially if you call instead of 4-bet. I still prefer 4-betting with a wider, but a more well understood hand range. 
|
|
#14
08-10-2007, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL500: 98o OESD BTN vs. BB 3bet pot against TAG
4-bet is mandatory against light 3-bettors
and its (edit: "not") like you have to do it all the time, against some ppl just one 4-bet will get them to bk off of you for a while
|
|
#15
08-11-2007, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL500: 98o OESD BTN vs. BB 3bet pot against TAG
Results (semi-important as they confirm my read that he 3bets a wide range):
He had Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] which was 5% equity wise worse for me than, say, AK. He probably folds that and similar hands to a 4bet and he probably folds Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and so forth to my flop raise as played. Still, 4betting him is probably more EV+ than doing what I did as why let him hit the flop? Thank you for your comments.
|
|
#16
08-11-2007, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL500: 98o OESD BTN vs. BB 3bet pot against TAG
All this complicated discussion, bet sizes, 4-bet, etc etc.. how about the fact that big pots are for big hands and you don't have one here at all but you want to raise big preflop build a big pot then continue to pile it on flop to basically draw dead consider what he was likely to have??
|
|
#18
08-12-2007, 04:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL500: 98o OESD BTN vs. BB 3bet pot against TAG
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that 98o was terrible. Would 98s also be terrible in that spot? Yes, I would have flat-called TT+/AK there as well preflop. [/ QUOTE ] Yea, if you flat call TT+/AK then I think we can add some suited stuff. I prefer it is not a big per cent of our range though, so maybe half the time we have suited connectors (say when our first hole card is club or diamond) we can call and play for stacks on the flop (prob just c/r all-in, and similarly half the time with AXs. I don't like s-1-gappers because they don't hit as often. It's tough between sc's and AXs because sc's hit a draw 20% of the time but only go from draw to made hand 1/3rd of the time with 2 more cards coming; whereas AXs hits a draw only 10% of the time but when we hit it, we are 50/50 against KK (and cuz we have an A in our hand, AA is half as likely for them) so it's a big draw, also we have an A in our hand so if we flop an A, we can call a street or two for lots of monies. Also, I hope you realise that we are almost never getting his stack if we hit a set (cuz he has air/trash so often), so we should fold low/mid pairs to a light 3-better because we need like 16-1 or 18-1 to call for set value cuz we stack him so rarely.
|
|
#19
08-12-2007, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL500: 98o OESD BTN vs. BB 3bet pot against TAG
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I hope you realise that we are almost never getting his stack if we hit a set (cuz he has air/trash so often), so we should fold low/mid pairs to a light 3-better because we need like 16-1 or 18-1 to call for set value cuz we stack him so rarely. [/ QUOTE ]I understand we cannot set mine, but isn't there at least some value in calling with 99-77 and then calling flop cbet assuming he will mostly miss? Also if he has air/trash so often isn't what I did good then? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#20
08-12-2007, 08:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL500: 98o OESD BTN vs. BB 3bet pot against TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, I hope you realise that we are almost never getting his stack if we hit a set (cuz he has air/trash so often), so we should fold low/mid pairs to a light 3-better because we need like 16-1 or 18-1 to call for set value cuz we stack him so rarely. [/ QUOTE ]I understand we cannot set mine, but isn't there at least some value in calling with 99-77 and then calling flop cbet assuming he will mostly miss? [/ QUOTE ] Yea, maybe in position 88/99 would be cool. Was referring specifically to set mining. [ QUOTE ] Also if he has air/trash so often isn't what I did good then? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] The problem is that 89o hits a draw so seldom (10% of the time) that paying 37.50 is terrible. Then you also have a standard draw which hits 1/3rd of the time. AXs and sc's are both superior to this (sc's hit a flop twice as much, and AXs makes for a monster draw). The more rare that a hand hits, the more we need FE (if we don't fold) to make up EV. So 4-betting is far superior (tho I prefer a fold)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
