blonde poker forum

Both from 100e 6max french freezeout.

1) Villain is fishy. 40/17. Is my line too passive?

Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: CoxyLboro (19302)
Seat 2: Sr Croissant (19698)
Seat 3: Riccrosa (28123)
Seat 4: Oo.siwii.oO (17887)
Seat 5: Bask8t (18825)
Seat 6: neuville25WI (17103)
*** ANTE/BLINDS ***
Riccrosa posts small blind 75
Oo.siwii.oO posts big blind 150
Dealt to Sr Croissant [Ad Td]
*** PRE-FLOP ***
Bask8t folds
neuville25WI folds
CoxyLboro folds
Sr Croissant raises 225 to 375
Riccrosa folds
Oo.siwii.oO calls 225
*** FLOP *** [Qd 6c 7c]
Oo.siwii.oO bets 413
Sr Croissant calls 413
*** TURN *** [Qd 6c 7c][2d]
Oo.siwii.oO bets 826
Sr Croissant calls 826
*** RIVER *** [Qd 6c 7c 2d][4c]
Oo.siwii.oO checks
Sr Croissant checks

2) 3bet pre or flat? Villain is 28/21/6. Size too small oop 65bbs deep? I think so. Cbet this flop?

Seat #2 is the button
Seat 2: S4lt1bank (19084)
Seat 3: Sr Croissant (33146)
Seat 4: WhiteMCWammy (38220)
Seat 5: wallrafa08 (12133)
Seat 6: yeyeee (33826)
*** ANTE/BLINDS ***
Sr Croissant posts ante 40
WhiteMCWammy posts ante 40
S4lt1bank posts ante 40
wallrafa08 posts ante 40
yeyeee posts ante 40
Sr Croissant posts small blind 250
WhiteMCWammy posts big blind 500
Dealt to Sr Croissant [As Qc]
*** PRE-FLOP ***
wallrafa08 folds
yeyeee raises 750 to 1250
S4lt1bank folds
Sr Croissant raises 1605 to 2855
WhiteMCWammy folds
yeyeee calls 1605
*** FLOP *** [2c 7d Jd]
Sr Croissant bets 2055

Hand 1 we should def fold flop IMO. Can't be sure ace is good, bdfd overrated

Bet more on the flop in hand 2 something like 2/3 pot. If we are called we are going to be barreling the turn, so we might as well just use all our bluffing chips in one go. Betting bigger also widens our range to include more value hands where as smaller narrows it down to the absolute top and bluffs. 

Hand 1 I like the way you played it. While we can't be sure ace is good, we're not calling to hit it, we're calling to have him slow down and let us get to showdown. He often has a weak(er) hand or a draw when he bets and he won't necessarily barrel when we flat in position as it looks like we're not going to give up. I'd rather call with this hand than a hand like 65, fior example. Even though bottom pair is a stronger hand, the only hands we're beating with it that ATs doesn't beat are 22-55, which don't generally donk the flop, and we can improve more often and to stronger hands. This donkbet feels like a one-and-done effort, if he had a set he'd be more likely to check-raise as there are draws on board and the pot is fairly small relative to stacks, and getting a check-raise in would get more money into the pot.

When we turn a diamond we have another obvious call, as part of our expectation that we have the best hand some of the time, and this is pretty close to a nothing card so we can expect him to keep barrelling. On the river I don't see any point in bluffing, he can have barrelled a flush draw and be looking to check-raise it.

Hand 2, like in the other AQ 3betting OOP thread, I don't see a good reason to 3b at all, unless we're 3betting so much (hint: we shouldn't be) that we can induce him to 4bet with worse. Flat and try to play a small pot oop.

Hand 1: I think is way too passive.  This often ends up been some trashy one pair / shit draw / shit bluff type hand.  Hard to say how likely we are to get him off any / all of these hands but I would more than likely 3b the donk lead and continue to rep a big hand.  As soon as we flat his donk lead its quite hard to rep anything.  We can easily fold to a 4b OTF and continue to rep a big hand down later streets (the diamond is ideal to continue betting with).

Hand 2:  Depending on what I'm trying to achieve I would usually go 2.6 - 2.8x on a 3b OOP (sometimes bigger if I know opp won't fold).  Would defo c.bet this flop.  If it was a little bit more coordinated straight-wise I might just give it up.

What purpose does our 3bet serve?

Takes control of the pot.  Allows us to rep a big hand and take the pot down by c.betting a good %age of the time, might also get him to fold some trash he was opening.  Also makes our life alot easier on later streets by not having to play a pot OOP with no idea where we are in the hand.

'Taking control of the pot' means very little.

'Allows us to rep a big hand' also means very little where we're at the bottom of our range for 3betting (for value at least); I'd much rather 3bet a polarised range of hands we're willing to get in preflop and hands that we're folding to a 4bet but play ok in 3bet pots, e.g. KTs or J9s and so on but that we can't call preflop.

'might also get him to fold some trash he was opening' the trash that he's opening is the stuff we want him to pay us off with postflop when he flops second pair or top pair with a worse kicker. we can also expect him to c-bet the flop when he misses a lot of the time, where we're very far ahead and our call looks strong enough for him to give up and allow us to hit our hand when we're behind or cooler him when the ace or queen turns or rivers.

'makes our life alot easier on later streets by not having to play a pot OOP with no idea where we are in the hand' it's not like we narrow his range so significantly by having him call the 3b preflop. He could be chasing with most of the rubbish he opens with or decide that he wants to slowplay a big pocket pair, or just call AK because he doesn't want to flip or some such crap. So we're in the same boat when we 3b, a lot, except now in a bigger pot.

It's a threeway pot remember, makes a big difference. Have to flop top pair to win it if we flat. Think it's definitely not clear cut.

This is completely back to front thinking.

Also:

I agree with Wazz here (or rather he agrees with me ... we discussed this recently). The concept of taking control of the pot is - at best - used as a sort of lazy short-hand for a variety of other valid reasons to bet/raise. In itself 'taking control of the pot' is not a concept that I recognise. Sometimes you may bet/raise thinking you are doing so to take control of the pot, and this bet/raise works out wel. But this just means that it worked for a different reason; such as getting value from a worse hand, making a better hand fold, or preventing your opponent realising his equity.

Many players find it much more comfortable to play with the initiative. But this comfort is merely an illusion that stems from the fact that they win quite a chunk of the pots in which they have the initiative. It fools them into thinking that having control of the pot is - in and of itself - a good thing. Really it is irrelevant. Only ranges matter.

It is a mental blindspot for so many players. They win the majority of pots in which they 'take control' (e.g. by 3betting preflop or raising on the flop) and so they are psychologically rewarded. But when they do this in the wrong spots what happens is that the pots they do not easily win tend to be very big ones, and they end up in horrible spots in these bloated pots. So they win plenty of small pots, but then get screwed in the big ones.

Phil Galfond put this concept into words many years ago (talking specifically about preflop 3betting, but it applies to postflop too):

"I suspect that most people get carried away with 3betting because of the mental reinforcement of winning most of the time when they do it. Winning the most pots does not equal winning the most money."

No real opinion on whether Alex should 3bet AQ or not in the actual hand. But if 3betting is good it is not because it 'takes control of the hand'.

It may be an illusion, but PT4 shows that I make a lot more BB's when I 3b out the sb than when I flat.  Possibly not the case for all players (and it may highlight a weakness in my postflop game), but as I have done ok in MTT/MTTSNG's I would advise someone to do what has been working for me.  There is definitely a lot of merit to having the betting lead when playing OOP and of that I am sure.

Its difficult to argue either way (different styles of play etc) but all I can be sure of is that 3b'ing has by far produced the best results for my style of play.

Unfortunately that is an example of making the wrong inferences from statistics.

OF COURSE you make more from the SB when you 3bet than when you flat! If you didn't then something would be seriously wrong! It will be the case for all players.

But this is not because there is something inherently profitable about 'taking the lead'. It is merely because - on average - the range of hands that you use to 3bet is much stronger than the range of hands you use to flat with. You've got to be careful how you interpret PT/HEM stats, and ensure that you are not making any false deductions from them.

BTW, I am not saying there is anything wrong with 3betting AQ from the SB in this spot. I have no real opinion on the matter. I am just saying that 'taking control of the hand' is a meaningless concept.

I'm sure you do have a real opinion either way and we'd love to hear it.

It's a tournament hand. He doesn't give a shit :D

I was talking about the 2k example of AQ I have been dealt in the SB.  And if you rep a stronger range by 3b'ing in these spots and win more pots then there is more of an argument to 3b from the SB with your full range.  I don't have a problem with flatting if it fits in with your style of play, but for the more aggressive players I have to think 3b'ing has to be a whole lot better for reasons I have outline previously.

Okay, if you filtered for AQ in the SB facing a CO raise then your inferences are likely somewhat reasonable. I mistakenly assumed that you had merely filtered for all spots in the SB facing a raise. My mistake. Although I would still advise caution and suggest you filter for stack sizes - there is a MASSIVE difference between 3betting AQ when 10-30bbs deep (when it will clearly be extremely profitable) and 3betting AQ when you are over 100bbs deep as in the actual hand.

TBH as I have said about three times already, I really have no opinion that I want to offer on the merits or otherwise of 3betting AQ in this spot. As I said, my only point was that 'taking control of the pot' is not a valid reason to do anything. And in fact it is conceptually meaningless. If AQ is more profitable as a 3bet here (it may well be) it is not because 3betting 'takes control of the hand'.

This very shrewd post sums up my general opinion on the hand in question: