The hand that had it all.

[ALL1N]

Hey, you make some good points, despite your aggressive tone. A few things I'd like to address though.

[ QUOTE ]
33%, not 67%, I don't know what math he is smoking

[/ QUOTE ]

No, 67% is right. If I reraise and force us both to put in an extra bet, and I win those 2 bets 33% of the time for an equity of 0.67 BB, that extra bet has cost me 0.33 BB. ie I have a 67% discount on my extra bet.

[ QUOTE ]
A chip spew is a chip spew, regardless of how negative EV it is. Does the fact that he's spewing less really justify a play that has no other reedeming qualties?

[/ QUOTE ]

My read was that I had a small amount of fold equity on the turn. The issue is clearly whether or not you're folding often enough to justify the play, and the 67% discount helps immensely here. Also, re: redeeming qualities, I didn't really go into this and I don't like talking about image creating plays, but I don't think you can argue no redeeming qualities.

[ QUOTE ]
Implicitly, somehow, ALL1n has illogically argued that his turn 3-bet sets up a river checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never argued/discussed this, it was just a successful pwning. A show-off, if you will.

[Surf]

Hey Magikist,

Whew, I got you pretty worked up, huh? Lets see if i can explain what may have been a misleading statement - that "bet-calling this turn is terrible."

Okay, we've got a slightly overaggro, slighty call-down-too-much TAG as our opponent. All1n implied that he would raise this turn for a free SD with all manner of hands, Ax unpaired, hands that just picked up a draw, possibly underpairs to the Q, etc. If we bet-call this turn and check-fold the river when we miss, we make all those too-thin freeSD-type plays correct. When he has A-hi or some overplayed PP hand we have let him play perfectly against us. When he has a picked-up flush draw we much prefer that he folds when we both miss, instead of the other way around.

So, if we can step back and look at the turn in a vacuum, we much prefer to check-call, or bet-3bet, than bet-call. Check-calling saves us from having to put 2BB in on the turn as an underdog to even an unpaired Ace, and we can donkbluff the river if we suspect he'd bet the turn with a draw, or a nice card hits that we could represent and move him off a small pair.

If we bet-3bet, we take the initiative away from his draws, so he has to be the one to yield on the river. We implicitly punish his too-thin freeSD raises when he has a mid PP or AK-esque hand, since they should be folding to our 3bet.

I'm not sure if you saw my followup posts, but I said something similar to yours - that the turn and river lines are inconsistent. If the turn 3bet is good then we need to bet the river since he should rarely both A) bet the river with a medium-strength made hand B) pay off the river c/r.

Surf

[Magikist]

Surf,

Apologies for coming across as hostile, that was not my intent.

Anyway, I don't find your argument very persuasive.

From what I can gather it seems that there are two reasons you'd have ALL1n 3-bet the turn.

1.) if the opponent is also on a draw.

Well, this is dismissed rather easily. It just much too speculative to proceed on this basis. Opponent could be raising a better draw. We don't even know what draw it is. But really, it's just so unlikely that he's on a draw here that the very low likelihood that he's semibluffing does not justify being OBLIGATED to have to invest another bet on the river. He'd have to have no pair and maybe even less than ace-high to fold.

2.) to punish the opponent for making a play for a free showdown

Well, even in your own words, the from opponent's perspective a free-card play is very marginally +EV. Assuming this is true, it's clear that allowing the opponent to get away with this play isn't really costing us much - what, a fraction of a bet?

So, given that we're not losing all that much, why should we 3-bet without a made hand? Simply put, a 15-outer is NOT enough equity to justify this play where the opponent, even given his LAG tendencies, will often be committed to a showdown.

There are somethings in life we can change, and there some things that we can't. We've all heard the quote - one of the important parts of life is having the wisdom to accept what we can't change.

In poker, we can't change the power of position. We exploit it, and we get exploited by it. It's opponent's prerogative to utilize the free showdown play because he has position. The reason a free showdown play can be potent is because it's difficult to counter. If he's provoking someone to 3-bet him with a draw because of he's past free showdown raises, then his strategy is successful.

I submit that to counter the free showdown play with a 3- bet you should have a made hand. 15 outs with one card to go is negative EV, without question, and the image "benefit" you may derive is not enough to compensate for the lost value.

Instead of 3-betting, call the raise and lead out when you hit. Adjust your strategy accordingly in the future. After a few times of leading the river for value with a made hand, start donking the river more with nothing.

But maybe the real solution is simply to avoid the situation in the first place. Just get up and move seats.

I think ALL1n's play is a classic example of someone trying to push back the sea. It's very obvious from reading these forums that many, many 2+2'ers succumb to this urge, myself included. We think we're good enough to play in all sorts of positions in all sorts of situations against anyone. Well, as we move up in limits, we have to start considering swallowing our pride and switching seats if we have this kind of LAG on our left.

[Our House]

Bet/3-bet is the new check/call.

[Surf]

Magikist,

from a FTOP standpoint, villain is never making a mistake here(if he could see our cards) regardless of his holding, even if he's bluffing unpaired to try and represent the Q. Calling and c/f'ing the river lets him play perfectly. Against other good players, just "not making a mistake" given his hand range is not enough - you have to strive to cause your opponent to make a mistake. 3betting here will cause villain to make some pretty significant mistakes, for the cost of less than 1BB in a good sized pot.

The counterargument to the bet-3bet line is "villain will not raise a hand unless it is strong enough to call down a 3bet" or "Villain will raise-fold this turn <10% (or whatever the breakeven point for this bluff is) of the time."

If this is the case, then bet-call is better. This is not the case, according to All1n's read. Saying "this is spewing because we are on a draw" or "you can't beat the power of position" isn't enough.

FWIW, I agree with your analysis that a counter to the habitual freeSDer is to 3bet made hands more liberally on the turn. Also FWIW, I wouldn't use the bet-3bet line here because i'd expect poet to call down more than most, here. Against many players this is a great move, though.

Surf

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, as we move up in limits, we have to start considering swallowing our pride and switching seats if we have this kind of LAG on our left.

[/ QUOTE ]

LAG was not my description. And just to clear things up for me, are you or are you not poetmagician? Thanks.

[Magikist]

ALL1n,

Apologies for the aggressive tone.

It sounds like you're conceding that the line is -EV, and that the fold equity does not make up the difference. I don't where the disagreement lies.

You don't address the value of this "image creating play," and rightly so. We shouldn' include any "image value" because it's simply too difficult to quantify. The laggy image can backfire on you as much as you can take advantage of it.

In addition, like I said before, the possibility that it gets capped, coupled with the difficult spot 3-betting puts you in on the river when you miss, exacerbates the spew. These collateral considerations outweigh whatever redeeming qualities there might be to the 3-bet, although I can't think of any and you haven't identified any, either.

[Magikist]

Surf,

Your reasoning exemplifies exactly the kind of destructive attitude I was referring to in the previous post.

You don't have to strive to cause your opponent to make a mistake in every hand. It doesn't matter if you make your opponent make a mistake if you're making a bigger one. I know it's so glamorous to outplay your opponent, but there's a time and a place for it, and it's not always appropriate.

In this case, you've got a big draw in a big pot. You have no folding equity. The odds are not in your favor. The correct play is very obvious once you get raised: don't put in any more money than you need to.

Implicit in saying that "this is spewing because we're on a draw" is the notion that we will be losing bets on the river far too often because he has a made hand here that will call the vast majority of the time.

3-betting the turn with a draw against a guy who can't fold a made hand is chip-spewing, plain and simple.

My impression is that this kind of play doesn't work against many players at all. Players on-line are notorious for two things: calling down and bluffing. Bluffing in response is the worst possible counterstrategy. In fact, to me this 3-bet just screams semibluff. A good player will pick up on this. Bad players will simply call down.

This line will work only in those situations where your image is pristine, or you're playing against an over-aggro, habitual bluffer, or some combination of those two elements.

[Magikist]

You're right, you expressly labelled him as a TAG. But then you said didn't expect him to fold to a turn 3-bet w/ TT, JJ, KJ, AT on a Q956r board. Combined with the descriptions from other posters in this thread, he sure sounds more like a LAG to me.

And no, I am not poet.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, to me this 3-bet just screams semibluff.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this counter you argument? i.e. Good players won't make a bluff like this...ALL1N is a good player. How is it screaming?