a curious preflop idea: protecting the fish from other TAGs - Page 2

Oki-Oki · #11 09-19-2007, 07:07 AM

My first impression was wow if we are seriously looking for edges this small we are all in big trouble. It a goodish idea but a little impracticle.

I think any edge gained here is going to be super thin, also it may have the converse effect of pissing off the fish because they never get to see a flop and GAMBOOOOLLL.

MATT111 · #12 09-19-2007, 07:16 AM

I do this a lot but don`t know if it`s worth it tbh.

Edit: We are talking about immediate EV- situations here, right? Not just adjusting ranges because sb is likely to be opening light.

DJ Sensei · #13 09-19-2007, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My first impression was wow if we are seriously looking for edges this small we are all in big trouble. It a goodish idea but a little impracticle.

I think any edge gained here is going to be super thin, also it may have the converse effect of pissing off the fish because they never get to see a flop and GAMBOOOOLLL.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea i wonder if its not worth it because fish like to see flops and this keeps them from doing it. but that can be said for all 3-betting, of course.

stigmata · #14 09-19-2007, 07:22 AM

I agree it's probably too thin of an edge to theoretically shift re-steal profitability even one notch e.g. from 56s to 46s or whatever....

MATT111 · #15 09-19-2007, 07:41 AM

It may become profitable when the fish and the opener is deep and you aren`t. I would repop with complete garbage in this situation if BT is opening really light.

BobboFitos · #16 09-19-2007, 08:16 AM

i like it

tozzy · #17 09-19-2007, 08:38 AM

taking such edges into considerations (e.g. turning a hand that is 0ev to 3bet with into a +ev hand by protecting someone from losing chips to someone else) leads to talking about metagame aspects vs the reg and so on.
what im talking about is, i think its zero-sum game.
edit: what i like is the idea of 3betting wider since a regular is gonna open a lot vs the fish, but that was obvious, i guess.

Oki-Oki · #18 09-19-2007, 09:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My first impression was wow if we are seriously looking for edges this small we are all in big trouble. It a goodish idea but a little impracticle.

I think any edge gained here is going to be super thin, also it may have the converse effect of pissing off the fish because they never get to see a flop and GAMBOOOOLLL.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea i wonder if its not worth it because fish like to see flops and this keeps them from doing it. but that can be said for all 3-betting, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate playing in games with tons of 3 betting, and im sure the fish feel the same way

pp262 · #19 09-19-2007, 10:02 AM

you're in the wrong seat

RoundTower · #20 09-19-2007, 10:27 AM

What is the value, to you, of the TAG getting a shot at the fish's stack?

Let's say the fish is really bad, -25ptBB/100. He loses one small blind per hand on average. There is no reason to think this hand will be particularly good or bad for him, so let's say you can expect him to lose 1SB on average this hand (in addition to the 2SB he will lose if you 3 bet and he folds).

How much is it worth to you to have that extra 1SB in the fish's stack? Let's say he is destined to lose all his money at the table, and everybody else at the 6-handed table has an equal shot at it (in reality you have less of a shot since you are on his right). Then keeping the fish out of the TAG's way is worth <u>one fifth of a SB</u> to you.

Ignoring the fish, 3 betting the TAG much more liberally is surely going to cost you much more than this. If the fish is so bad that this strategy becomes worthwhile, it must be just as good to just call more in this spot and get in a pot with the fish at all costs.

Right?