The reason I ask about calling pre is because we don't have enough info on our opponent. It could be a profitable play, it could not. We don't actually know yet.
If you perceive him to have a tight 3-betting range, then we are dominated nearly all of the time.
Given that you had this plan to move him off a strong hand, you obviously think he will fold on scary looking boards, so when we hit decently enough, you are expecting to not get paid. Therefore, I'm not sure where our implied odds are coming from unless you cooler them.
If you don't think that they can fold an overpair or TPTK, then we have implied odds, but why would you then try this adventurous plan?
It may only be 50 more to call, but that is 10bb more and the effective stack is less than 200bb, so you aren't deep.
Seeing as you describe the villain as 'solid' - obviously what people mean by this definition varies, but to me it is a competent player, not just one that plays ABC. Do you not think it is a little presumptuous to assume that you will just get him off missed overcards every time?
This just all brings me back to the fact that we don't know enough about villain yet to know where we are making money in this hand. We have no idea how they play postflop and we shouldn't be calling too many 3-bets just because we have position.
I don't think there is anything wrong with having such a plan on the turn and trying it, it would just be a lot better if you had logical reasoning that it would work and that it is a +EV play.
Anyway, they are just my thoughts. Interested to hear responses to it
Great post
Gowan honeybadger give us your thoughts.
I do not have a ton of interesting thoughts on the actual hand itself really. I like the idea, and think it is fun, exciting and creative. I also suspect it is not profitable. That's about all I can say. But I do have some thoughts on a wider issue which this hand highlights.
In general, I don't think a game plan based around trying to get unknown players to fold strong hands is one that tends to work out well. However, this is the sort of play that I might occasionally try when I am totally settled onto my table, in the zone, fully aware of my opponent's tendencies etc. But I tend to avoid too many creative ninja-read dependent plays in the early stages of a session since I am unlikely to be 100% zoned-in yet, and also because I have nothing more than tentative inferences about how my opponents play.
When I first join a table my primary aim is to get myself settled, order
pudding a drink, make sure I am comfortable, deal with any distractions etc. Then I start to get myself into a calm, concentrative mindset before I proactively engage. I am not looking to make any creative moves or outplay anyone in the first twenty minutes or so. In fact I am
actively avoiding this sort of thing. My main goal is to get myself focussed and
ready to play.
I believe that when I have just sat down at a table most of my opponents have an advantage over me for the first twenty minutes or so. They are already settled, comfortable and zoned into the game. I am not. I prefer to avoid unnecessary confrontations and marginal spots at this time. On the other hand, I'm always delighted to have a new player sit down when I am already settled and focussed and seek to 'take me on' before he has even got comfortable in his seat. Even if he is a much better cardplayer than me, it is unlikely to work out well for him if he seeks to confront me when I have such a big advantage over him.
In my opinion, understanding and implementing stuff like this is just as important as knowing how to play your cards well. There are so many reciprocal advantages to be gained over your opponents if you think about strategic factors that go beyond the play of a hand.
Excellent stuff
Author