2/4 B&M - Bet or checkraise monster flop that I capped preflop?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you can easily assume two different overcards are out there (and likely all three) in people's hands and probably an underpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is live(you mentioned 2-4 B&M), this is much too narrow a range. More like, any 2 suited. Any A. Loose passives come in with all sorts of crap. Hell, this is too tight a range for 10-20.

b

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't see your second hand pokerstove results. I must have missed it when posting my reply to your previous post. You don't think 50% of hands is maybe a little wide for 3 players to call a double sized raise? Anyway, I'm not going to continue arguing hand ranges with you. I'll let SSHE be my argument for not-capping with JJs.

b) The fact that you don't seem to understand typical 2/4 game conditions, or worse you don't seem to understand what loose-passive even means, tends to weaken your argument. You can claim I'm changing the subject, but basic poker knowledge seems pretty relevant to this discussion.

c) You're right we discuss them. Discussing is different from saying its a good play. You were defending the argument that you could call for set value when you were only getting 5:1 odds because it was "almost" correct.

I frequently don't quote everything because it would cause the posts to grow extremely fast. Was there something specific there you think I should have addressed?

[/ QUOTE ]

a) I'm glad you're going to stop arguing hand ranges with me. But when did you ever start? You never presented your likely ranges anywhere in this thread (other than a reraise means AA/KK/AK or maybe QQ).

Now, if calling two more when already in (with sub-par holdings) isn't the definition of loose and passive, then what is?

Yeah, I did think 50% was a wide range. You didn't read the second set of Pokerstove results where I ran the middle three players as the top 25% of hands. I ran them both for comparison's sake.

Here's some more, putting ALL the villains on top 10% of hands:
Player 1 JJ: 24.243%
Player 2 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 3 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 4 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 5 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%

You're also not getting 5:1, you're getting 5.75:1. Anything over 17.39% equity is profitable.

And if you're gonna use SSHE as your rationale, try citing the friggin book. Again, you say I'm wrong, but counter with nothing.

b) Hey, I'm not the one claiming loose passives call reraises with only strong hands.

c) Discussing isn't saying something is a good play or a bad play. Discussing is saying WHY something is a good play or a bad play.

Seriously, read entire sentences (and apparently entire posts). I never claimed that you should cap JJ for set value alone. This isn't the difference between 2:1 and 10:1, this is a matter of percentage points. 7.5:1 and 5.75:1, plus implied odds.

I said it's almost correct to cap it for set value alone. Then, when you consider how strong JJ is unimproved (as verified by Pokerstove), it makes the decision clear.

See what I did right there - that's called a decision-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, are you a baby about everything? Look at the preflop charts. A pair of jacks is not in the capping hands. Would you like a page number? Too [censored] bad, you'll have to crack it open yourself (it might help you out).

I mentioned players being loose-passive not when talking about the callers, but talking about the 3-better. Look back in the thread. I said a typical person 3-betting in a 2/4 game is capping with a very limited range of hands. I even gave what I suspect that range of hands to be. As for the other players, I have no problem with putting them on a wide range of hands, but c'mon 50% of hands? Even most [censored] players will ditch Q2s when its 2 bets back to them.

The set value + winning unimproved makes this an easy cap? What do you do when an overcard comes? You're dealing with players that are going to call with lots of stuff including hands that beat you and don't. Do you bet when a Q comes on the flop? Do you keep betting all the way to the river?

This is all on top of the fact that if a typical 2/4 LIVE player 3-bets you, you should be very worried about an overpair. The BEST you an hope for is two overs. For [censored] sake, read the OP where in the first [censored] line he said: "2/4 B&M, 10 handed, loose & passive table"". Even when you're going to get an overpair to the board you're likely up against a better overpair and so you can't take full advantage of it. The only flop you like is one with a jack in it. We've covered that you don't have the equity to cap for set value so why are you doing it?

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you can easily assume two different overcards are out there (and likely all three) in people's hands and probably an underpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is live(you mentioned 2-4 B&M), this is much too narrow a range. More like, any 2 suited. Any A. Loose passives come in with all sorts of crap. Hell, this is too tight a range for 10-20.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't assume in this case that you're dealing with at least 2 overcards? The 3-better alone likely has two or an overpair. I'm not saying each player likely has an overcard or a decent hand, just that by playing against 4 other players I'm going to assume that I'm up against at least 2 overcards. Whether they're in hands like K4s, A2o, Q8o, whatever.K4, A2, Q8, whatever.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
or you can just call the guy a nit and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't actually feel that nitty. This discussion started with me saying his original hand range was too optimistic because he put 3 players on random hands, and I thought he put the 3-better on too wide of a hand too. He seemed to get offended by that and it escalated. Since then he seems to not have admitted that a typical 2/4 game is loose-passive (even though its in the OPs statement) and he doesn't seem to realize that I care more about the play then about the exact ranges I would put him on.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's some more, putting ALL the villains on top 10% of hands:
Player 1 JJ: 24.243%
Player 2 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 3 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 4 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 5 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%

You're also not getting 5:1, you're getting 5.75:1. Anything over 17.39% equity is profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is anything over 17.39% profitable? You need to be winning >= 20% of the time to make the cap breakeven or better, assuming everybody will call that last bet (which is probably reasonable).

Anyway, I came back to ask, if we assume that you have a 4-5% equity edge (so you'll win 24-25% of the time, even though you're only putting in 20% of the money) for the cap. Is this all you think you need? You don't think this hand is a hand that is hard to play and loses some of its value because after the flop you're stuck with decisions that are very hard to make.

[Bill C]

The only reason to cap here would be to isolate the 3-bettor, but with all of these callers, that isn't going to happen. Plus you are OOP and have a hand that is pretty vuilnerable to overpairs or overcards that pair on subsequent rounds. I think you should call the 3-bet and see the flop.

The pot is big, and would have been big even without your cap. When you hit your set, especially on this dry board, and against a bunch of passives, I'd bet and hope to be able to 3-bet. Why screw around? Win it now or on the turn if you can.

Just my $.02 worth...

bc

[Scarmiglio]

There are other reasons to simply call the 3-bet. It adds deception to you hand. Due to your position you'll be able to check/raise with more certainty on either the flop or the turn if the board is favorable. If the board is highly unfavorable you can get away from your hand more easily. When the pot is huge everyone has the odds to chase backdoor straight and/or backdoor flush and/or two pair/trips and you will get sucked out on more often. Obviously with the current board these aren't as big a concern, but we're talking about preflop.

That being said, If I were in late position I would cap this every time.

[JJH3984]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason to cap here would be to isolate the 3-bettor, but with all of these callers, that isn't going to happen. Plus you are OOP and have a hand that is pretty vuilnerable to overpairs or overcards that pair on subsequent rounds. I think you should call the 3-bet and see the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

How bout for value?


Hand 1: JJ 25%
Hand 2: AQo+, AQs+ QQ+ 31%
Hand 3: Any suited, any broadway, any pair 15%
Hand 4: Same 15%
Hand 5: Same 15%

Even if player 2 only caps with AK AKs QQ+ you have 22% equity if villians have this same range (which i think is very narrow.)

[Frond]

Personally, I dont like getting passive at all with JJ. Is it not a great starting hand? Why not pump it. How many times in a few hours does one expect to get a big PP anways? I say get as nuch PF value from them as you can then use good post flop play to go further and make other good decisions on later streets. Just me though.

Funny but people always will say at a table, "I hate pocket Jacks". You never hear people say that they hate pocket Tens, 9's or 8's.

[Scarmiglio]

I love me some pocket Jacks. They're easier to get away from than Kings or Aces post flop. That being said, they may be a great starting hand, but there are 3 hands that have you crushed preflop, and 12 cards that can come on the flop, turn, or river that beat you. It's a tricky hand to play well. Also, the most common 3 betting hands in a typical passive small stakes game are QQ+. Without reads that the 3-bettor is laggy, I would just call and play it from there.