Blind vs Blind against tricky villain

[Carmine]

The reason to 3-bet this PF (in addition to points already made) is because you prefer to have initiative going into the flop. Flops are not easy to hit. When both players miss it is very difficult for SB to continue even with a better hand.

This turn is tough especially when you don't know villain as well as OP does. If Hero gets capped here he is never ahead and also never folding. Would villain ever do this with a hand like 77 if he knows hero can laydown Ax. In which case we lose a bet if we 3-bet (although he may give up on the river anyway).

I've seen villains line used with both a monster and garbage. Seems like calling down is best in both cases.

[ervinsm46o]

Id 3 bet it preflop, and besides the aforementioned think about it this way. When people three bet me, Im not a huge fan of it because they are actually making a correct play, and tend to tread waters a bit more cautiously. Thus your A9 which has showdown value in a vacuum can get to showdown cheaper when you only have ace high.

For example

Sb opens, you 3 bet. Flop k74, Sb checks, you bet and he calls. Turn 8. Sb checks, you check behind and induce a river bluff a high % of the time and get to showdown cheap by only putting in one bet on the turn and river.

As for what to do on the turn, id definitely 3 bet against a better (aka player capable of making a move with a diamond/str8 draw or pair/flush draw or other combo here)

If hes good, which you say he is, and he has a strong hand the check raise on the turn is going to shut down the hand if you are weak, which from his viewpoint you played the hand very weak or were slowplaying. What he sees is you just call preflop, just call flop and then he slows down by checking the turn, so to him, its almost obligatory for you to bet here with any two cards, thus imo the likelihood of him having a draw here is high enough to make 3 betting +EV.

[MacGuyV]

OK I'm not saying a pf 3bet is bad or anything but there's just too many oversimplifications going on.
What about when you get C/R'd on the K74 flop? What the hell kind of good Tag bluffs the river "a high % of the time" when you take the most obv. "cheap sd" line ever?
Carmine, if we have SD value then why is initiative especially vital? With what hands on which flops is it difficult for him to continue with a better hand than A9?

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason to 3-bet this PF (in addition to points already made) is because you prefer to have initiative going into the flop. Flops are not easy to hit. When both players miss it is very difficult for SB to continue even with a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to get too meta, but sometimes having the initiative is a bad thing in this spot. Given the way the hand will play out, SB gets the 'button' almost by default on the flop/turn.

That said, I still three bet, to let them know that I will three bet wide so that raising 87o is not going to be profitable. If I can 'discipline' them in this way, it will have the twin benefits of giving me a few extra walks over the course of the session, and also make his hand range a BIT easier to read, which will make postflop play easier for me.

(FWIW, if you have Cardrunners, Schneids discusses this concept fairly extensively in his 5-10 video, and does so both more cogently and with a MUCH better Minnesota accent than do I.)

[NinaWilliams]

I agree that sometimes having the initiative is a bad thing, but with A9o here I feek like our equity preflop is too much to pass up by not 3 betting. Id just call A2-A5 though.

[UtzChips]

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop is not given IMO. I disagree that its a must 3-bet against a TAG.

If he is SD bound I dont mind the 3-bet but if he is non SD bound a 3-bet will kill Hero's action on A high flops.

Its my experience that flop raises gets less credit than preflop 3-bets from other TAGs such that just calling preflop makes more bets postflop when an A flops.

If he is LAGgish postflop I think its a clear 3-bet

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an excellent point, which I subscribe to often, as I play 1 table at a time. However, unless I have good info on my opponent, it's a default 3bet PF.

I've found that going for that juicy ck/raise on the turn often backfires when my opponent checks behind, especially when I am taking up 1/2 the board with my split two pair. Therefore, I play fast PF & on the flop. How fast depends on my holding and my opponent. I no longer play slow h/u.

[ervinsm46o]

sorry, i said "high % of the time" more so what i meant is often enough to make it profitable, not that hes doing this some absurd number like 3/4 of the time.

[TheHip41]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Against a thinking opponent I would probably raise this flop to confuse him. 3-betting this pre-flop can't be that bad of a play either. Just call down after he screw plays the turn because he's a good player and his hands are heavily skewed towards 2 pair or better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good player will have much more than 2 pair here.

[/ QUOTE ]


FWIW, I'm a 25/15/pussy, and I am c/r any Ace on the turn.

I also watch ILP play a hand where he raised suited dick in the sb, bb calls, flop was KJx, ILP has like 95s or something, ILP bets the flop, guy calls, turn is a non flush card 6, and ILP c/r, hoping to get the good player to fold PP, or the x pair.

Point is, your hand is so strong, not three betting the turn here is a crime.

[Tryptamean]

Yes, turn screwplay is more often a good 1 pair hand or semibluff than monster

[Gurravasa]

Good discussion guys, and I think it's good that we don't agree all the time. To summarize I think 3-betting seems default, but not the only way to play against a good player like this. I also think that raising flop is a good play, but waiting til turn has merits as well. I like the 3-bet/call down a cap line best on turn, and no other lines except the usual "call-down" (that is way to weak here IMO) has been suggested. This is not a hand where only one play could be right!