Countering this?

[Honeybadger]

Although it wasn't intended to be... if I do say so myself, this post above ^^^ is a pretty good explanation of the sort of approach and thinking that allows us to deal with the 'difficult' turn/river issues in a profitable way. Knowing when a scare card is not really that scary, knowing when we can turn our hand into a bluff on certain board run outs, keeping our opponent's range wide, taking advantage of our perceived range ... all this stuff is how we can make more profit through flatting the flop with TT here rather than 3betting. And when you understand this kind of stuff it means you no longer have to 3bet 'to end the hand right now' or 'to make it easier to play'. Instead you can play it in the most +EV manner possible.

[skolsuper]

</thread>
</pha>

edit: although I do think I put it more succinctly

[Honeybadger]

</thread>
</pha>

edit: although I do think I put it more succinctly

Lol EVERYONE puts things more succinctly than me! I am completely unable to be that guy who says few words but whose every word counts.

[DMorgan]

Not convinced that this isn't a level from pleno and callum

[Honeybadger]

Not convinced that this isn't a level from pleno and callum

Pretty sure this is not the case!

Thing is, there IS a logic behind their reasoning. It is +EV to 3bet the flop with TT here. And it does take down the pot right now by folding out villain's air. It also makes it nice and easy to play vs his air (since villain will just fold and we can move on to the next hand). The issue is that it is more +EV to flat the raise.

The problem is, I think, that Patrick has got fooled by the fact that he will win the pot more often when he 3bets, and has not quite understood that winning the pot most often does not always equal winning the most money. This should be obvious, otherwise it would be optimum play to open shove every single flop lol! But it is sometimes easy to get confused on this, especially when not winning the pot right away will lead into murky waters and what appears at first glance to be guessing games.

One thing that must be pointed out is that flatting the raise and then c/c the turncosts exactly the same as 3betting the flop. Plus it guarantees that you get to the river. And it keep villain's range wide. It also forces villain to either fire multiple barrels at us, or to meekly give up.

[Honeybadger]

Tbh, the more I think about this hand... the more I think the nut line against standard 100NL regs is to call the flop raise and then check-fold if villain bets the turn. I can see a lot of 100NL regs often trying a cheap bluff raise on this flop (however silly that may be). And I can't imagine many of them are going to be firing the turn again often as a bluff once we check-call. Plus the mid-strength part of our range (TT etc) is well protected from reckless zero-equity barrelling by the high proportion of Kx hands we also have in our range. So it's not like we can be massively exploited even if a particular reg picked up on this tendency (however unlikely this would be).

If I am correct in my assumption about how most 100NL regs play (i.e. they try one-and-done bluffs quite often but don't barrel 'enough') then BY FAR the cheapest way of 'finding out where you are' (as Patrick wanted to do) is to simply call the flop and check the turn. And you find out without putting loads more money into the pot.

So, I think the best lines in order are as follows

call flop, c/f most turns > call flop, c/c most turns > 3bet flop, have no idea what to do if hand reaches turn > fold flop

The possible exception would be if an Ace came on the turn. This is such an 'obvious' scare card (even though it is not really scary) that I'd expect many robot regs to pluck up their courage and fire a turn barrel. So I might prefer to c/c on an Ace turn, and c/f most other turns.

N.B. This is all exploitative play of course, not GTO stuff. Also, just to note ... everything I have been discussing is when we are deep. With 100bbs it is much simpler.

[DMorgan]

Yeah I agree with you Stu, just all looks to be a pretty standard and is so for the reasons that you give?

I'm sure that proving this with some numbers would be pretty simple, but maybe not at 5am.

[Honeybadger]

Yep Dan, I got a bit carried away with myself on this thread. Partly cos I was in that kind of mood. And partly cos I really, really want Patrick to 'get it'. I hope it does click for you Patrick.

Anyway... sleep!!!

[SuuPRlim]

Seriously, I'm pretty sure Callum (justinsayne) an I have 3et more flops than probably anybody in poker (seriously )

lol

Not convinced that this isn't a level from pleno and callum

[discomonkey]

i feel like the biggest question here is not who is right about the hand but how hard pleno is levelling/trying to level.... couldnt really agree with honeybadger more

[Doobs]

I had a very similar hand that I played on skypoker that was shown on TV and watched by just me and the other two people in the hand.  I had TT in the SB, button raised with 99 or 88, I called from the SB and BB called with either 88 or 99 (i know the hands were 88 and 99, just not sure who had which.  I checked the flop, BB checked and button put out a small bet.  I check raised this and both folded. 

The studio expert said I played it well, but I was irritated as I had the best hand and had made the other two fold.  I then tied myself in knots trying to work out if I would have won if I had 88 and did the same against 99 and TT, or whether I was unlucky to come across a pair of nits!   

Apologies for the derail.       

[pleno1]

zzzzzzzzzz disco to all of your pleno ool aggressive posts. pretty boring.

honeybadger also said that he didnt doubt 3betting the flop would show an initial profit/be +ev why would karl/dan both think this was a levelling attempt?

[pleno1]

also pretty shame that a debate has to become into a "he must be levelling" finale as prob puts people off in future. ill just stick with conservative lines n the future

[discomonkey]

couple of things you said just seemed very level like and i wasnt exactly the only one who thought it if you read through...

if you think that 3betting here is the best option then good for you, but it is my humble opinion that honeybadger is way on point with this and that 3betting here would be a mistake.

[Honeybadger]

also pretty shame that a debate has to become into a "he must be levelling" finale as prob puts people off in future.

FWIW Patrick, I did not ever think you were levelling... only comment that made me even suspect it was the 'got to find out where you are' comment.

ill just stick with conservative lines n the future

Two quick points here before I have to go out for the night:

1. It's not a question of sticking to the 'conservative lines', honestly it isn't. I do not always agree with some of the aggressive lines that you advocate, but I admire the fact that you are giving them a go (and making them work a lot of the time!). Even the times they don't work out you will be learning a lot more than a robot reg just taking standard line after standard line. However, in this particular thread your thinking is just clearly wrong IMO, and it is actually a really important issue, not just for this exact type of spot, but for an overall philosophy of poker type of thing that can come up in a TON of different spots.

2. Actually the whole 'conservative line' phrase here is a bit out of context. To some extent, it is 3betting the flop that is the 'conservative line'. That's the way a lot of old school guys would play: they'd think (to oversimplify things) "I am likely ahead here, so I will raise to keep the lead and to protect my hand". And they are likely ahead here of course, so their 3bet usually 'works' (it doesn't really 'work' of course, but it appears to because they usually win the pot immediately). I play regularly in a live game with a VERY VERY strong player who is most definitely old school... and I know 100% that he'd 3bet the flop here for the above mentioned reasons. He's a MUCH better player than me and I will never, ever be as good as him. But he is wrong on this sort of spot. Yes, it works for him... but flatting would work EVEN BETTER. To a great extent, flatting the 3bet is the more 'adventurous' play.

Got to go now but I'd really like to carry on this discussion. I think it is really important.