Stud hi: What's your plan when 3-bet on 3rd by an overpair?

[electrical]

Before I elaborate, I want to say I totally love this discussion, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to participate in it. It is about my favorite thing in the world next to scooping.

I also want to get two things out of the way: If I hold the Ace in the steal position described, I will be completing a great majority of the time, regardless of my cards. The point I was trying to make is that the strength of the hand is not purely random, because I will fold some dead hands regardless, and some others against certain opponents in favor of saving bullets for getting into confrontations with weaker players. I also think distribution prevents me from holding a "pure crap" hand in this position often enough to make playing an underpair against me hot-and-cold a no-brainer. More about that below.

[ QUOTE ]
Electrical

"If you're playing three-handed, that's a different story."

But we are playing 3 handed, BUT with 8 antes. The "different story" statement I don't get, because its this type of marginal play that makes the difference in winning and losing over the long run. You have to play these hands well, at the best price. If you don't, then you get no action when you do play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware that I am not expert at this game, but this particular scenario and conclusion cconfuses me. Playing short-handed, I see much more action put in with marginal hands, and this makes sense intuitively: When you play three-handed, you have less than half the chance of running into a good hand, versus a full table, because there are fewer players who might pick up a good hand. Marginal holdings improve their relative strength short-handed. I see similar things said about other games on this forum all the time, so I don't think I'm out on a limb here. As an example, you see a lot of raises and re-raises put-in during heads-up Hold-em matches with holdings much weaker than you would see in full-ring blind battles, and that is a nearly analogous situation.

That five of the eight opponents at a full table have chosen not to play makes this presumed steal a reverse Monte Hall puzzle. Your group of opponents is still much more likely to have a good hand among them, and that group chance is condensed down to the last two opponents, one of whom has just raised into your Eights with an Ace showing.

Ignoring playing history and other information (which, as others have noted is more important), you are going to run into a decent hand there more often than at a table which is seated short-handed, because among the larger number of opponents at the table, you are more likely to run into a good hand somewhere.

If that is incorrect, please someone tell me why.

The extra antes offset that some, but stealing the antes is something you can do cheaply as the opportunities happen upon you (for example when you have a live Ace in late position and there is only an Eight and a Deuce left to get through), rather than spending five BB chasing them against an aggressor. I would much rather be stealing than defending in this hand for that reason.

I should explain something here. I think the live Ace should probably be completing here almost all the time. I make a distinction between the Ace completing for value, as a semi-bluff steal and a pure steal with a hand the eights dominate.

If the presumed stealer isn't stealing with a crap hand the overwhelming majority of the time, then raising with (85)8 can't be mandatory.

Is a pure crap hand that often even possible? Let's define a crap hand as having two unpaired hole cards, one of them an undercard to an Eight, and not a three-flush. Is that an overwhelming majority of possible holdings? It seems like we're accounting the first-rate Razz hands, plus a few more.

Without parsing it out, I don't think that is an overwhelming majority of possible Ace hands. I know that when I complete in a steal position, I often think my hand will play well against the remaining opponents even if they have some kind of little hand (the situation we're describing), and I don't think I am being dealt-to from a special deck.

Even if the villain thinks he is stealing, he may be doing so with a hand that isn't worse than a 3:2 dog, and the Eights are conveniently offering him better odds than that.

It seems to boil down to how often we believe the Ace is stealing with a hand we beat, and hands he might fold incorrectly. Everyone but me seems to think it is almost all the time. I know that when I'm stealing I don't hold a crap hand nearly that often, and I don't assume my unknown opponents do. I may be raising almost all the time, but it doesn't seem like my hand is pure Razz crap the overwhelming majority of the time.

Which brings us to the players. Certain opponents I do play back at, based on prior play, and I'll be happy to go to war with Eights against them. They will shoot themselves in the foot pretty regularly, and I want to be in the hand when they do it. That's why statements like "call 100 percent of the time" or "raise 100 percent of the time" make me uncomfortable. Sure, there are games where I will re-steal 100 percent of the time, or play back with Eights 100 percent of the time, but played in a vaccuum, or against unknowns, I tend to avoid situations where the payoff is small relative to the risk, and I don't see how card distribution can make us a strong enough favorite to overcome the substantial multi-BB losses we incur when we blindly call down to fold the river or make a payoff hand here.

Is it good poker to risk $100 for a possible extra nickle, when there will be a later opportunity to risk the $100 to make an extra $200? Possibly, in an absolute sense, but everyone's preferences in gambling form a spectrum, and I only have about one percent gamble in me. I think I can attack weak players profitably without getting stuck in awkward situations against unknowns, so I tend to play that way.

For those who suggest raising back with Eights, is there a split pair+kicker combination that you wouldn't play back with? Deuces with a Trey? Where do you draw the line?

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think folding 3rd has to be wrong here. If I'm folding 3rd here the A should be completing 100% and showing a huge profit.

As it stands I think the A should be raising a very large % anyway, which is why I think the reraise is profitable.

The hands you listed, except AKx, are all the hands he will be calling my raise with. But that ignores all the hands he'll be folding (any non-hand that has a card equal to or below 8).


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm lazy, so I admit I haven't tried to figure this out yet. If the ace is completing 100% and folding to a raise as much you suggest, have you figured out how close to an automatic profit you are if you are raising with a random 8 vs a random A that folds "non-hands" to a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]


You're far from an automatic profit, just intuitively.

I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

I just did some quick calculations and got that that's 18%.

That number is a bit smaller than I would have guessed. I think I would have put it at around 25%.

IMO the value of reraising may be more that it protects us from getting bluffed out when our opponent catches semi-scary cards in a small pot than that it protects from free cards from hands that would have folded to our reraise.

[electrical]

[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

I just did some quick calculations and got that that's 18%.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sort of figure (for pure crap stealing hands) I was expecting based on not thinking about it too hard, and it suggests to me that raising with Eights is far from automatic.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent work SG. I like it because its so simple.

So Spladle make a decision, you only have 10 seconds. Call or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks CPA. Simple is my middle name [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Spladle]

[ QUOTE ]
So Spladle make a decision, you only have 10 seconds. Call or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the ante/bring-in?

[Spladle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're worried about FTOP mistakes, ask yourself this: If he did show me AA, how would I play it? If he showed me 42 rainbow in the hole, how would I play it? If the answer is the same, then you have your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer to these two questions is never the same. In the first scenario you would fold or call depending on the size of the pot. In the second you would always raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you always raise if you have split eights and you know he has (24)A. If he would fold to a raise, but would auto-bet fourth, wouldn't calling on third be the correct play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if the ante is $500, the BI $1, and the betting $2/$4!

Obviously the size of the pot and how your opponent will play the later streets is relevant to how you should play a hand. However, if we have no knowledge of those factors (and in the example you gave the only things we knew were our cards and our opponent's cards), then the statements I made hold.

[Spladle]

[ QUOTE ]
I am aware that I am not expert at this game, but this particular scenario and conclusion cconfuses me. Playing short-handed, I see much more action put in with marginal hands, and this makes sense intuitively: When you play three-handed, you have less than half the chance of running into a good hand, versus a full table, because there are fewer players who might pick up a good hand. Marginal holdings improve their relative strength short-handed. I see similar things said about other games on this forum all the time, so I don't think I'm out on a limb here. As an example, you see a lot of raises and re-raises put-in during heads-up Hold-em matches with holdings much weaker than you would see in full-ring blind battles, and that is a nearly analogous situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is where you're confused, I think. In HU hold 'em, the pot is the same size pre-flop as it is when there are ten players. However, in HU stud, the pot is smaller than when there are eight players. Therefore, when you hold an ace and are looking at an 8 and a 2 left to act, you should raise more often if five players have folded than if none have.

[ QUOTE ]
That five of the eight opponents at a full table have chosen not to play makes this presumed steal a reverse Monte Hall puzzle. Your group of opponents is still much more likely to have a good hand among them, and that group chance is condensed down to the last two opponents, one of whom has just raised into your Eights with an Ace showing.

Ignoring playing history and other information (which, as others have noted is more important), you are going to run into a decent hand there more often than at a table which is seated short-handed, because among the larger number of opponents at the table, you are more likely to run into a good hand somewhere.

If that is incorrect, please someone tell me why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether this is true depends on the effect "clumping" has on stud. If we assume that there is none (which isn't true, but calculating the effect is close to impossible) then what you have written is incorrect. The dead cards will make it more or less likely that the remaining up-cards will constitute part of a "playable" hand, but on average this effect cancels out. Playing in a scenario where five unknown hands have folded in a full game is the same as playing in a three-handed game (except for clumping, as mentioned earlier). The only difference is the size of the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
The extra antes offset that some, but stealing the antes is something you can do cheaply as the opportunities happen upon you (for example when you have a live Ace in late position and there is only an Eight and a Deuce left to get through), rather than spending five BB chasing them against an aggressor. I would much rather be stealing than defending in this hand for that reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a reason that re-raising in this spot is known as "re-stealing." It's because against someone who folds to re-raises too often (or who folds later streets against aggression too often), re-raising with virtually any three cards can become correct. Against someone who folds less often it is still correct to play back with hands that have some value but are not necessarily ahead of his range. Obviously, then, with hands that actually are ahead of his range, "re-stealing" will virtually always be correct, since your opponent must call you down even when behind or risk folding incorrectly too often.

[ QUOTE ]
If the presumed stealer isn't stealing with a crap hand the overwhelming majority of the time, then raising with (85)8 can't be mandatory.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is only correct in very small pots. In larger pots it is acceptable to play on with hands that are behind your opponent's range.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to boil down to how often we believe the Ace is stealing with a hand we beat, and hands he might fold incorrectly. Everyone but me seems to think it is almost all the time. I know that when I'm stealing I don't hold a crap hand nearly that often, and I don't assume my unknown opponents do. I may be raising almost all the time, but it doesn't seem like my hand is pure Razz crap the overwhelming majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
What you mean to say is that it boils down to the equity our hand has against the stealer's range. I think MM said somewhere earlier in the thread that we are about a 60/40 favorite here.

[ QUOTE ]
Which brings us to the players. Certain opponents I do play back at, based on prior play, and I'll be happy to go to war with Eights against them. They will shoot themselves in the foot pretty regularly, and I want to be in the hand when they do it. That's why statements like "call 100 percent of the time" or "raise 100 percent of the time" make me uncomfortable. Sure, there are games where I will re-steal 100 percent of the time, or play back with Eights 100 percent of the time, but played in a vaccuum, or against unknowns, I tend to avoid situations where the payoff is small relative to the risk, and I don't see how card distribution can make us a strong enough favorite to overcome the substantial multi-BB losses we incur when we blindly call down to fold the river or make a payoff hand here.

Is it good poker to risk $100 for a possible extra nickle, when there will be a later opportunity to risk the $100 to make an extra $200? Possibly, in an absolute sense, but everyone's preferences in gambling form a spectrum, and I only have about one percent gamble in me. I think I can attack weak players profitably without getting stuck in awkward situations against unknowns, so I tend to play that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your thinking here is flawed. So long as you are playing in games that you are adequately bankrolled for, +EV spots should never be turned down. Against unknowns, you should assume that your opponents play good. Only after you have confirmed that someone plays sub-optimally and determined exactly how their play is sub-optimal should the process of exploitation begin.

Reverse implied odds do not make it correct to fold as a 60/40 favorite in this spot (if we assume that the pot is reasonably sized).

[ QUOTE ]
For those who suggest raising back with Eights, is there a split pair+kicker combination that you wouldn't play back with? Deuces with a Trey? Where do you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't run the sims. Ask someone who has.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Spladle make a decision, you only have 10 seconds. Call or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the ante/bring-in?

[/ QUOTE ]


For the purpose of discussion let's say it's 8-handed 100-200 with 20 ante and 30 bring-in.

Also to anyone who is still reading this thread, say you do reraise the 885, rightly or wrongly. What then is your plan if your opponent 3-bets? Would you agree with what I outlined in my OP?

[Andy B]

[ QUOTE ]

I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think he's folding AK4? A lot of folks won't even fold a razz hand.

[Spladle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming the A will fold when he has no pair, no 3 flush, and no 3 overcards.

I just did some quick calculations and got that that's 18%.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sort of figure (for pure crap stealing hands) I was expecting based on not thinking about it too hard, and it suggests to me that raising with Eights is far from automatic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if he were to never fold 3rd street, the raise should still show a profit. You're about a 60/40 favorite against his range.