|
|
#21
11-20-2007, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
This is an example of the "sunk cost fallacy". It doesn't matter who put that money in. You want to take the optimal action given your situation. And if you check down and lose a showdown, or fold to a likely turn bet, then you're giving away that money that's in the pot. So this is not a side note, it's an important issue to grasp, I think. You could question whether it's a good idea to get yourself in that situation in the first place, that is, whether you should have put all that money in the pot to get to the c-bet decision, but that's why I did the other calculation to figure out whether it's a good idea to 3-bet preflop or not.
[ QUOTE ] In no way do I disagree that 3betting is +EV. My post was an attempt to give a conceptually example of why 3betting pure air such as 84o can be –EV. On a side note, I don't logically agree with evaluating a play at the moment. i.e. “In this case, you risk 18-20 bb to win the 25 bb pot” Half of that pot is your money. Looking at the hand as a whole you are putting 30BB in the middle to gain 12 if successful. Where is my logic flawed? [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#22
11-20-2007, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
I think it really depends on the game and the villains. I usually don't get called 60% of the time. I'd say I probably get called 40% of the time. But remember that some of those times I have AA and KK, and I get more calls those times because I've 3-bet other times with 67s or some drawy hand like that. I think I'm really understating the value of 3-betting (at least in my game) with my previous calculation, because most of the reason that I do it is to get action for my big hands, whether they be pf monsters like AA or KK, or flopping a big hand with a drawing hand, and the villain thinks I'm just c-betting and doesn't believe me. If I'm getting called too often and not being able to take down pots with c-bets on the flop, then I will tighten my 3-bet range and try and get that same action when I have a good hand.
[ QUOTE ] EV = p(4bb)+(1-p)(.6(12bb)+.4(-30bb)). p>54.5% = EV Just thinking about this more. What Percentage of the time are your 3bets called? In my experience its easiliy more than half, I would say its pushing 60%, which is a pure guess-timate. This leads me to believe in the current 6max games the perception of a light 3bet has made a tight 3betting range more profitable. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#23
11-20-2007, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
3betting TAGs very often is going to get them to play back at you pretty quickly. I would do this a few times until I get caught and then tighten up, because they are going to remember you as that [censored] that keeps 3betting me in position and start looking you up or 4betting hands like TT or AQ. In fewer words, do it to establish an image, then use that image to get paid off.
|
|
#24
11-20-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of the "sunk cost fallacy". It doesn't matter who put that money in. You want to take the optimal action given your situation. And if you check down and lose a showdown, or fold to a likely turn bet, then you're giving away that money that's in the pot. So this is not a side note, it's an important issue to grasp, I think. You could question whether it's a good idea to get yourself in that situation in the first place, that is, whether you should have put all that money in the pot to get to the c-bet decision, but that's why I did the other calculation to figure out whether it's a good idea to 3-bet preflop or not. [ QUOTE ] In no way do I disagree that 3betting is +EV. My post was an attempt to give a conceptually example of why 3betting pure air such as 84o can be –EV. On a side note, I don't logically agree with evaluating a play at the moment. i.e. “In this case, you risk 18-20 bb to win the 25 bb pot” Half of that pot is your money. Looking at the hand as a whole you are putting 30BB in the middle to gain 12 if successful. Where is my logic flawed? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I see, let me try and put this in my own words. So on a flop the decision to c-bet or not is based on 18BB to win 25BB, b/c this is the decision at hand. However, 3betting with the intention of taking it down on the flop with a c-bet must be evaluated as 30BB to win 12? ?
|
|
#25
11-20-2007, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
IF you are called, you'll risk the 30 to win 12. Think about it this way:
EV[3-betting]=Probability of a fold pre-flop*Original Raise + Probability of a call pre-flop*EV[3-betting|villain calls]. Then EV[3-betting|villain calls] = EV[c-betting]-12. I'm abstracting from 4-betting and the option of checking behind on some flops and not others, etc. Think about the c-bet decision this way. Say you can either c-bet and get a fold, or you'll get check-raised and fold. Or you could check and lose the hand automatically. If you fold and lose the hand, then you're down 12 for the entire hand. If you c-bet, then you'll win the pot (and be up 12 for the hand) 60% of the time, or you'll have to fold (and lose 30) 40% of the time. So even though 12*.6+(-30)*.4=-4.8 is less than zero, it's still greater than -12, which is what you get by checking. Note that you'll get the same answer by just considering the 12 as a "sunk cost", then you can either check and get zero, or bet and get 25 60% of the time and -18 40% of the time. This is actually a general property of all decision problems (outside of poker), that if you add or subtract a constant from each of the state-dependent payoffs, the optimal decision does not change. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is an example of the "sunk cost fallacy". It doesn't matter who put that money in. You want to take the optimal action given your situation. And if you check down and lose a showdown, or fold to a likely turn bet, then you're giving away that money that's in the pot. So this is not a side note, it's an important issue to grasp, I think. You could question whether it's a good idea to get yourself in that situation in the first place, that is, whether you should have put all that money in the pot to get to the c-bet decision, but that's why I did the other calculation to figure out whether it's a good idea to 3-bet preflop or not. [ QUOTE ] In no way do I disagree that 3betting is +EV. My post was an attempt to give a conceptually example of why 3betting pure air such as 84o can be –EV. On a side note, I don't logically agree with evaluating a play at the moment. i.e. “In this case, you risk 18-20 bb to win the 25 bb pot” Half of that pot is your money. Looking at the hand as a whole you are putting 30BB in the middle to gain 12 if successful. Where is my logic flawed? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I see, let me try and put this in my own words. So on a flop the decision to c-bet or not is based on 18BB to win 25BB, b/c this is the decision at hand. However, 3betting with the intention of taking it down on the flop with a c-bet must be evaluated as 30BB to win 12? ? [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#27
11-20-2007, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
[ QUOTE ]
I have AA and KK, and I get more calls those times because I've 3-bet other times with 67s or some drawy hand like that. [/ QUOTE ] If you have TAG PT numbers and post here your 3bets are viewed as light by other regs regardless of frequency. Based on that belief there is less reason to 3bet light.
|
|
#28
11-20-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
cliffnotes:
3betting air IP vs loose LP TAG openers is a bad idea in general and needs a read. 3betting with sc's s/1gaps small pairs or hands that will sometimes flop well enough to push teh flop with good equity vs AA is a good idea in general you don't need to 3bet light vs bad TAG LP openers at all - the other players do this enough already and you can just use the image they provide to make it seem like you 3bet more often and lighter than is really the case. tho vs solid TAGs you need to do the work yourself. Knowing what flops to CB/ raise a CB on is crucial otherwise you will just end up spewing. 3betting from the blinds OOP light is usually not a good plan in general.
|
|
#29
11-20-2007, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
[ QUOTE ]
cliffnotes: Knowing what flops to CB/ raise a CB on is crucial otherwise you will just end up spewing. [/ QUOTE ] I must be the king of spew here. Are there any good suggestions on this topic?
|
|
#30
11-20-2007, 07:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: abusing bad TAG players preflop [theory]
True for some, but not for all. I do usually try and get a little bit of a read on a player before I three-bet him light. And I should note too, that by light I usually mean at least a suited one-gapper or something like that, not 84o as the OP suggested. There's pretty much no situation where I'm going to find myself involved in a raised pot with 84o. I think I'm just not a good enough player to ever make that profitable.
[ QUOTE ] If you have TAG PT numbers and post here your 3bets are viewed as light by other regs regardless of frequency. Based on that belief there is less reason to 3bet light. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
