a really tough and interesting hand - Page 2

Josh. · #11 11-15-2006, 11:33 AM

3-betting or calling are both fine the first time around

luckychewy · #12 11-15-2006, 11:39 AM

having just called the utg rz which is obv fine on occasion, i would play it the same here. i can't see any argument for folding closing the action with a v well disguised hand which may even be best right now AND position. i could see why you would want to 3-bet but i'm not so sure i like that since as you said utg can easily be trapping with aa/kk and the usually tight sb can obv easily have aa/kk too, i think so far this is good stuff.

Josh. · #13 11-15-2006, 11:41 AM

calling with AA if you're utg is sacrificing some in reverse implied odds vs MP caller (me) but you're underrepping your hand and letting other overplay their hands because they think you can't have AA or KK.

my problem handling a lot of these situations is i make assumptions on other players based on the way i play myself. all these people here are saying he can't have AA or KK because they wouldn't do it themselves. i assumed he definitely could because i call with AA/KK there sometimes. we're just going to have to agree that some players do it and some don't. but i'd be glad to keep talking about whether WE should be doing that utg, just not whether this particular utg would do it

gman06 · #14 11-15-2006, 11:58 AM

I don't think we should be cold calling the 3-bet UTG AA/KK as a standard line. I would only do it if I felt really confident the original 3-bettor would c-bet any flop even if it was 3 way. I also would like to have a read that the cold-caller of the first raise will fold a decent % of the time. With AA, there is a high chance you are up against 2 pocket pairs (or maybe 1 pair and 1 SC, either way your pot equity goes way down) who will often stack you if they hit. With KK, you are often against 2 underpairs or Ax, giving you even less postflop equity. Thus, cold calling w/ AA is a lot better than KK, but I am still not a fan.

To be fair to your argument Josh, most solid villians will quickly dump their hand to your 4-bet. Thus, you should 4-bet bluff in this spot from time to time as well to balance your play.

Josh. · #15 11-15-2006, 12:05 PM

either way it's not a *great* situation even though we have the nuts. if you 4-bet you arent going to get much action since that's a stronger than usual 4-bet. if you call, you let in MP, who likely called with a strong range including hands with good implied odds, and SB probably won't lead without hitting the flop or having flopped a pair. but in general people are untrusting and we still have great implied odds on our hand given how much we've disguised it. no way QQ gets away now. if we 4-bet he probably has a pretty easy fold

gman06 · #16 11-15-2006, 12:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
either way it's not a *great* situation even though we have the nuts. if you 4-bet you arent going to get much action since that's a stronger than usual 4-bet. if you call, you let in MP, who likely called with a strong range including hands with good implied odds, and SB probably won't lead without hitting the flop or having flopped a pair. but in general people are untrusting and we still have great implied odds on our hand given how much we've disguised it. no way QQ gets away now. if we 4-bet he probably has a pretty easy fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of this I agree with. You say no way QQ gets away which seems kinda contradictory as you have QQ here and your OP makes it seem like you want to get away from it on the flop. And if you don't want to get away from it on the flop, you need to 4-bet preflop for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Overall, you haven't really convinced me that calling is nearly as good as 4-betting

Josh. · #17 11-15-2006, 12:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
either way it's not a *great* situation even though we have the nuts. if you 4-bet you arent going to get much action since that's a stronger than usual 4-bet. if you call, you let in MP, who likely called with a strong range including hands with good implied odds, and SB probably won't lead without hitting the flop or having flopped a pair. but in general people are untrusting and we still have great implied odds on our hand given how much we've disguised it. no way QQ gets away now. if we 4-bet he probably has a pretty easy fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of this I agree with. You say no way QQ gets away which seems kinda contradictory as you have QQ here and your OP makes it seem like you want to get away from it on the flop. And if you don't want to get away from it on the flop, you need to 4-bet preflop for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Overall, you haven't really convinced me that calling is nearly as good as 4-betting

[/ QUOTE ]

i meant SB, as he's the one we're more likely to get action from. but if the flop goes SB check, UTG bet, i don't know if i can get away

KRANTZ · #18 11-15-2006, 12:32 PM

i like the way you played this preflop. be careful against UTG postflop and get it in vs SB.

gman06 · #19 11-15-2006, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
either way it's not a *great* situation even though we have the nuts. if you 4-bet you arent going to get much action since that's a stronger than usual 4-bet. if you call, you let in MP, who likely called with a strong range including hands with good implied odds, and SB probably won't lead without hitting the flop or having flopped a pair. but in general people are untrusting and we still have great implied odds on our hand given how much we've disguised it. no way QQ gets away now. if we 4-bet he probably has a pretty easy fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of this I agree with. You say no way QQ gets away which seems kinda contradictory as you have QQ here and your OP makes it seem like you want to get away from it on the flop. And if you don't want to get away from it on the flop, you need to 4-bet preflop for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Overall, you haven't really convinced me that calling is nearly as good as 4-betting

[/ QUOTE ]

i meant SB, as he's the one we're more likely to get action from. but if the flop goes SB check, UTG bet, i don't know if i can get away

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true (and I think it is too), you should have 4-bet in the OP. Do you see why?

Requin · #20 11-15-2006, 12:37 PM

You have position and relative position, which is hugely important in pots where people are going to have to play straightforwardly. There's little money left after the flop, and a ton of strength has been shown so far, and it's 3-way, so I do think this forces everyone involved to play inline with their real hands postflop. This is less true the more often SB c-bets small in big reraised pots. If he can c-bet for like 1/3 pot postflop, that negates alot of this. Either way, I think anything but calling PF here sucks.