Does this suck?

[bung]

so you think he's bluffing big...wouldn't that be a terrible bluff? I'm assuming most players are calling it down.

[Buckmulligan]

Very close. very read dependent.

in response to miles:

I think he could play all pocket pairs 22-88 like this and still call down the three bet.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
so you think he's bluffing big...wouldn't that be a terrible bluff? I'm assuming most players are calling it down.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of players bluff too much. Yesterday a 35/4/1 player raised me on the turn with J9 on a 2347 board when I had 99. Of course he rivered a J so he probably knows more than I do.

[milesdyson]

Yeah and those are really the only hands that 3-betting gets value from. Most players don't take lines like that either, and the ones who do are more likely to be the ones who fold them to the 3-bet. Either way, what you say about 22-88 can be true and calling down can still be better than 3-betting by a wide margin. That's how I feel about this hand at least.

[bung]

Assuming you two are right, if we are ahead to a small pp, then why would we not 3-bet? Villain will either fold, and we take down a large enough pot. If they raise, then we can value bet and get the most out our hand....

[danzasmack]

Essentially what that does is win a pot of size X when we three bet and he is bluff and lose a pot of size Y when he has the goodies, where Y >X

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you two are right, if we are ahead to a small pp, then why would we not 3-bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
He has a range of hands here, not just pocket pairs.

[ QUOTE ]
Villain will either fold, and we take down a large enough pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a really bad result if he has a pocket pair. This pot is not close to "large enough" that we would be happy he fold a 2 outer.

[bung]

I see. A chip off the old WA/WB block......that's really interesting. Thanks for the clarification danzasmack.

[bung]

I understand (both points). Makes more sense to me now...