Why 3bet?

[thac]

It's still on one page, what are you talking about?

[scallop]

I dont know if the following makes any sense...

Lets assign a value to each possible starting hand, ignoring the suited factor. Im not sure how many hands this would be, but lets say hypothetically it is 100.

1 - 23
100 - AA

The higher the number, the more valuable the hand at showdown.

I think there must be some hypothetical value that we can add to a hand, which would "boost it up the ladder" when that hand has position.

Lets say AJ is the 84 on the ladder. Lets say that 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] is 50 (im just picking numbers here... hopefully you get the point).

Scenario: It folds to the btn. Raises with 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. SB fold. We are in the BB with AJ.

If we elect to raise then yes, we may fold out a "worse hand" (such as 89). When we call, we keep this worse hand in the pot, and are hoping to extract value from it on subsequen streets.

However, if you follow my ladder theory, if we can just say that having position boosts a hand up the ladder by 35 places then the 89 becomes a "better hand" to have than the AJ, simply because of the position. We are going to find it very difficult to extract value in most cases with AJ from 89 when we smooth call because we are out of position and have showing weakness. Villian is liable to think his marginal flops have greater value. When we raise we take away the position value of 89, it loses its 35 places on the ladder and instead the hand reverts back to what cards villian has. In this case he has 89, which is a hand with little showdown value pf (does that make sense... im not so sure.)

My point is that calling pf, because we do not want to fold out worse hand is a fallacy because our hand becomes the worse an awful lo of the time due to position, as C-Bets will not always work.

[scallop]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread should had been locked like on the first page.

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

[thac]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that calling pf, because we do not want to fold out worse hand is a fallacy because our hand becomes the worse an awful lo of the time due to position, as C-Bets will not always work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I don't mind folding at all. I like the way you're thinking about this but we're just most likely not gonna win a big pot either way with AJ (barring a JJK flop where we stack AK or something) no matter if we 3-bet or flat call, so folding can't be too bad.

This isn't a tournament, we don't have to defend our blinds with marginal hands when we can just as easily raise our button with J9s and take blinds back.

[scallop]

Also, at 6 max we will get our big hands in the blinds 1/3 of the time. If 3 dont 3-bet from the blinds lighter, our range is super easy to read.

[thac]

I didn't say I don't 3-bet light, I'm just saying I don't do it with AJo. My range for 3-betting in the blinds to a button raise is like {AA-JJ, AKs, random connectors and hands I don't wanna fold but don't wanna flat call}

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]

you're oop, playing a hand that doesn't get paid, versus a hand that usually doesn't pay out.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, that sounds like the perfect time to three-bet. Why lose a small pot when we can win a small pot? OK, so villain's calling range absolutely munches ours; if that's the case, we always have the option of check-folding the flop. However, if villain folds to our three-bet "often enough" then we make money immediately off the bet and we can give up on the flop most of the time and STILL have a profitable play. If villain is raising 15% of his hands, but only calling/four-betting us with super-premiums (QQ+, AK), then he's folding all but 2.6% of his hands to our three-bet. That means that 5 times out of 6 he walks away from the pot, and we scoop it immediately with our AJo, winning villain's 4xBB and the 1.5xBB that were in the pot already. The other one time in six we lose the money we risked on the three-bet, but as long as that is less than 5*5.5 = 27.5xBB, we're still making an immediate profit. Oh, and for a nitty player, playing back at a three-bet might very well have a range of "QQ+, AK" or so, and my scenario is realistic. Just be prepared for when villain changes things up and starts playing back at you more often -- when that happens you'll have to adjust your three-betting range appropriately.

Assume villain is tight and is only stealing 15% of his hands. Further assume his preflop raise was 4xBB and your three-bet is to 14xBB. Let's also assume you automatically check-fold every flop if called. In that case, your three-bet is profitable if:

EV = F*(5.5) + (1-F)*(-14) = 0
F = 71.8%

...villain folds 71.8% of his hands. Now, if he was raising 15% of his hands, then we're saying he's calling the three-bet with less than 4.2% of his hands, which looks something like "JJ+, AQ, AK." I know plenty of nitty villains who would dump AQo to a three-bet, and I know plenty of nitty villains who would call a three-bet with JJ for set value only, planning to fold to any flop bet if there's an overcard. If you c-bet any flop with an ace or king, those bets are going to be very +EV on the flop as well, and you'll fold out your opponent quite often.

The fact that your opponent won't pay off your monsters in this hand is just fine, because AJo isn't going to make a monster very often. Typically it's going to be junk vs. junk, and you'll win that war with aggression.

Sure, this strategy turns AJo into 72o, but when your opponent's strategy is fundamentally flawed internally you don't really need cards to have a profitable response. The only reason to limit your hand to good cards is (a) to reduce the frequency with which you resteal, so that your opponent doesn't get overly frisky, and (b) so that you can OCCASIONALLY hit a monster against villain's good hand and win a big pile of cash. Most of the time, however, you're just playing for folding equity.

[traz]

See Pokey, that's the whole reason I'd prefer to call with AJ. As your post explains, if we're going to 3bet, we might as well do it with a hand that cannot stand up on it's own. If we're ahead of villain's range (like most of you claim), then AJ can stand up on it's own and you might as well call, otherwise you're taking value out of the hand.

With 72, or low suited connectors, or ATC, you're not removing any value out of the hand by 3betting because there is very little value to start with. Therefore they make better 3 betting hands (IMO).

Since we agree that 3betting with AJ is similar to 3betting with 72 in that it relies on scooping up the pot preflop, then I'd much rather do the latter because you will very rarely lose a big pot with 72, but you WILL with AJ...and also because 72 starts out with no value, where as AJ has inherent value which will be negated by a 3bet.

[incognitus]

everyone seems to agree that AJ got reverse implied odds in a 3bet pot. those who still want to 3bet with it say that folding is loosing value but i just dont get that. u can still 3bet just as much but with other hands like 45s or something else that do great against a tight range.

[kaz2107]

i just skimmed this thread as i have a monster test tomorow that i need to leave and go study for sighhhhh

but i honestly dont think we got enough info on villian to correctly answere this question. i think it vastly depends on villian, our image, and the table dynamics. none of which have been given to us really. i can create a situation for 3 bet call or fold with wut info we have been given here and fill in the info that is missing from the post on my own.

i think all 3 can be used successfully and are important in their own spots. i think all the right thoughts have been thrown out there in this thread. just have to decide which applies to the 3 conditions that are given in each situation.

as far as calling goes i think that only works if u r creative on the flop and MUST c/r lots of flops that u miss and all that crap. no way u can get away with calling and then c/fing everytime u miss. that would b like burning money imo.

i would love to see a couple ACTUAL hands that relate to this thread posted in the next day or two. with good table dynamics, image of hero and reasonable read on villian.