a fun 97s hand

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
hey guys,

one time i limped utg with 72o, another guy raised, another guy 3bet, and i !capped! because of my slight equity edge, first guy folded, 3bettor called, flop was 777 and i capped all streets and owned his aa so hard! thoughts/comments? anyone want to stove it?

[/ QUOTE ]

fold pf.

[Dhani]

[ QUOTE ]
I GUESS think this is barely worth playing preflop, but why did you limp 3 bet it? How is that not awful?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the OP is advocating this as a standard practice. Once in a while to throw others off, it might work, if you are in a gambling mind set for that hand. IF you miss on the flop, then you check fold. I wouldn't call this spewing if it's in a controlled enviornment.

[Man of Means]

I think the theorem developed in part by TPK and BBB states that it is incorrect to raise with 97s but if you get a chance to 3-bet it, THATS TEH MAGIK NUTZ, take me to the river.

p.s. I liked/agree with SNOWBALL's post and I too have been trying to work "...and she dances in the sand" every time I see reverse implied odds. Good job.

[BadBigBabar]

97s with a raise to you = 3town because you have the automatic nuts, and go ahead and put the tip chip on your cards pf b/c you're going to be sliding it to the dealer at the end of the hand already.

[StrictlyStrategy]

Okokokok I think we've had enough ribbing here!

[Hair_of_the_Dog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if you were slightly above equity, the 3 bet would still be bad though, because you are forcing yourself to play badly after the flop and lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really understand this statement. Just because an extra bet goes in pre-flop you are suddenly going to start playing "badly" after the flop? I understand that inflating the pot increases the odds that everyone is getting to call including ours, but why would you have to play "bad." Either a play is +EV or it isn't, and you can certainly still "play poker" in a big pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better way to say this is that you are allowing your opponents to play better, meaning the bigger pot gives them +EV to call. I can't remember the quote or what book it was from, but it basically says that when you give your opponents -EV to continue and they continue you win.

Hands like this become more difficult when you hit top pair with your 9 and now you want to try to protect your TP. With a weak kicker and a large pot it becomes very difficult to protect.

BTW: Nice flop [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys,

one time i limped utg with 72o, another guy raised, another guy 3bet, and i !capped! because of my slight equity edge, first guy folded, 3bettor called, flop was 777 and i capped all streets and owned his aa so hard! thoughts/comments? anyone want to stove it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you not raise preflop?

Are you saying OP's post was not interesting? His limp reraise was a mistake, but the post was very thought-provoking to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing. it's difficult to quantify things in poker. it's a game of limited information. alot of people completely missed the point on this hand, and i didn't help the situation by trying to defend this from an equity/value-based standpoint. anyone too stupid to understand what's going on here isn't gonna get it and it doesn't do any good for me to try to explain 'cause they don't want to get it.

was this limp/3bet immediately -EV? most likely. but we are literally talking about fractions of a bet in expectation i'm giving up in the short term. this hand is not for those that think they play poker in a vacuum of constant values and unalterable equities.

fact of the matter is, people get so hung up on what amount to educated guesses, they miss the forest for the trees. READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD. it sets the precedent for what we're doing here. but dig deeper than, "zomg fun hand no discipline 72o lol". this is a reflection of a complete lack of understanding of what it takes to make the most money possible at a limit above .50/1.00. when you begin playing against opponents that think beyond their current pot odds, their own two cards, and how to hit the raise button, it is necessary to deviate from immediate optimal strategy(believe it or not) to maximize overall expected value. news flash: the online games are tight! so what can we do to change that? tight players don't get action. loose players go broke because of the rake and excessive losses due to playing too many hands. the key to getting paid off in online LHE is giving the illusion of action. this is exactly what i was trying to achieve with this hand. i didn't preplan it, but i saw situation that presented itself and i made a fishy looking play. in reality, however, what this play cost is more than compensated by being called down with Ahigh or bottom pair for the rest of the session. i can just see the "TAGs" at the table clamor to write notes on me, and i adjust for that. i understand that once i do this and show it down, it is essential to adjust to how my opponents will respond to me. so i bluff less but can valuebet more.

this isn't anything new. put away small stakes hold em and blow the dust off the cover of hold em for advanced players. this exact concept is discussed in a couple spots in that book(making it 3bets pf with 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], etc.). what makes you guys think this concept, which obviously had relevance to maximizing profitable play if it was put in a book(which, btw referred to games that are significantly softer than those found in today's online environment) by two of the best poker writers/thinkers ever, has any less bearing on the games in which we play today? plays like this expand your opponent's range because in their eyes your range is wider than it actually is. this means they make mistakes in the future according to the fundamental theorem while also increasing your average equity against them when you are in a pot.

once again, it's my fault to the extent that i tried to defend this play initially. but nonetheless, anyone that can't get their trunk out of their ass long enough to think outside the box isn't necessarily the player i'm trying to reach anyway.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys,

one time i limped utg with 72o, another guy raised, another guy 3bet, and i !capped! because of my slight equity edge, first guy folded, 3bettor called, flop was 777 and i capped all streets and owned his aa so hard! thoughts/comments? anyone want to stove it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you not raise preflop?

Are you saying OP's post was not interesting? His limp reraise was a mistake, but the post was very thought-provoking to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing. it's difficult to quantify things in poker. it's a game of limited information. alot of people completely missed the point on this hand, and i didn't help the situation by trying to defend this from an equity/value-based standpoint. anyone too stupid to understand what's going on here isn't gonna get it and it doesn't do any good for me to try to explain 'cause they don't want to get it.

was this limp/3bet immediately -EV? most likely. but we are literally talking about fractions of a bet in expectation i'm giving up in the short term. this hand is not for those that think they play poker in a vacuum of constant values and unalterable equities.

fact of the matter is, people get so hung up on what amount to educated guesses, they miss the forest for the trees. READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD. it sets the precedent for what we're doing here. but dig deeper than, "zomg fun hand no discipline 72o lol". this is a reflection of a complete lack of understanding of what it takes to make the most money possible at a limit above .50/1.00. when you begin playing against opponents that think beyond their current pot odds, their own two cards, and how to hit the raise button, it is necessary to deviate from immediate optimal strategy(believe it or not) to maximize overall expected value. news flash: the online games are tight! so what can we do to change that? tight players don't get action. loose players go broke because of the rake and excessive losses due to playing too many hands. the key to getting paid off in online LHE is giving the illusion of action. this is exactly what i was trying to achieve with this hand. i didn't preplan it, but i saw situation that presented itself and i made a fishy looking play. in reality, however, what this play cost is more than compensated by being called down with Ahigh or bottom pair for the rest of the session. i can just see the "TAGs" at the table clamor to write notes on me, and i adjust for that. i understand that once i do this and show it down, it is essential to adjust to how my opponents will respond to me. so i bluff less but can valuebet more.

this isn't anything new. put away small stakes hold em and blow the dust off the cover of hold em for advanced players. this exact concept is discussed in a couple spots in that book(making it 3bets pf with 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], etc.). what makes you guys think this concept, which obviously had relevance to maximizing profitable play if it was put in a book(which, btw referred to games that are significantly softer than those found in today's online environment) by two of the best poker writers/thinkers ever, has any less bearing on the games in which we play today? plays like this expand your opponent's range because in their eyes your range is wider than it actually is. this means they make mistakes in the future according to the fundamental theorem while also increasing your average equity against them when you are in a pot.

once again, it's my fault to the extent that i tried to defend this play initially. but nonetheless, anyone that can't get their trunk out of their ass long enough to think outside the box isn't necessarily the player i'm trying to reach anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few things:

1. meta plays are only good when you you expect your opponents to notice, and you expect them to react in a way that is both predictable and exploitable by you.

2. You have to either expect to play a very long session with your opponents or you have to expect to play them repeatedly in the future

3. You have to showdown your hand or there is zero value in your play

I doubt all these conditions apply. Think about it. Are you gonna make a note on everyone at the table that says "they saw me do x therefore they prob think I am a spazz"?
What if they were too busy multitabling and didn't make their note? Then you are going to have a false assumption and it may screw up your play vs. them.

A couple other things about the value of this play in general

1. When an opponent has a particular tendency, you want to increase his predictability. For example, if he rarely shows down, you would like it if he will showdown even LESS against you. In games that are often short, winning unimproved has a ton of value. Against tags, this is moreso the case.

2. In general, in LHE, the pot will often become so large in relation to the betsize that your ability to steal a pot for one extra bet has MASSIVE value. Therefore, in most LHE games, achieving a loose image is just shooting yourself in the foot.

The exception to #2 is when your opponents are tilting towards the "call too damn much" end of the spectrum. In that case, you don't want to discourage them from their errors, and achieving a loose image against them will probably magnify the mistakes these players are making and can therefore be +ev for you

[StrictlyStrategy]

Why go for metagame against a 38/12/1.5 , a 44/19/1.5 a 18/4/.5 a 38/4/1.1 bb calls

?

[killsadie]

lrr with junk (it was sewted)
flop nuts
post on 2p2