$10 NLHE 6-max: 3bet pot all middle cards, can I barrel with 99?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptainKout
  • Start date Start date
jchoop said:
.....is it over? please tell me its over
Click to expand...

Worst post in thread ainec.


All this discussion is gold, nobody needs to win or be right. Just defending your position and thinking about other peoples positions even just to try and disprove them is gold. I love these arguments with people on different sides and I don't expect to change anyone's opinion. Sometimes my opinion is changed though.
 
jchoop said:
except 3bing them you win at what was it, 80bb/100? when flatting both acky and i came up with at least double that. and our samples are pretty much the same size (when you consider mine is solely for 99 and ackys is 77-99) yours is relatively smaller, but i think we can go with it anyway and call it even considering you include TT which adds more bb/100 and 77-88 which add slightly less bb/100. its by no means conclusive, but i think its more than enough for you to stop writing it off as negligible
Click to expand...
Actually it was 80BB/100 or 160bb/100 (PT3 vs HEM difference).
 
Deco said:
This thread is bizzarre.

If villain folds enough that 3betting 99 is EV+ 3betting 72o would be EV+.
Click to expand...
Ummm, no? Stuff happens after the flop, and 99 is significantly better at that after the flop stuff.
 
WVHillbilly said:
Actually it was 80BB/100 or 160bb/100 (PT3 vs HEM difference).
Click to expand...

ahh touche'. didnt pick up on the whole big bets vs big blinds thing. HEM only user, just thought bigblinds/100 was standard for NL games 😛
 
c9h13no3 said:
Ummm, no? Stuff happens after the flop, and 99 is significantly better at that after the flop stuff.
Click to expand...

99 is obv better but in all fairness, you might as well have 72o since the reason were 3betting 99 is ultimately a bluff as we plan to give up most of the time postflop when called, + neither hands do well at all vs his calling range- let alone the fact that villain can pretty much rep any high card that peels and we have to gtfo
 
c9h13no3 said:
Run a filter for 2nd pair at showdown and see what your winrate is. It ain't good. My hold'em manager is long past installed, but it should be a pretty simple filter to run.
Click to expand...

*Acky posts graph*

Still complains? he posted a graph showing it is profitable what more do you want?
 
jchoop said:
99 is obv better but in all fairness, you might as well have 72o since the reason were 3betting 99 is ultimately a bluff as we plan to give up most of the time postflop when called, + neither hands do well at all vs his calling range- let alone the fact that villain can pretty much rep any high card that peels and we have to gtfo
Click to expand...

lol I thought this was the point..

ok done posting, back to reading and loling at this thread.
 
c9h13no3 said:
Ummm, no? Stuff happens after the flop, and 99 is significantly better at that after the flop stuff.
Click to expand...

In a 3bet pot it will be marginally better as at showdown we can beat ace high if us and villain both checked down.

Do you 3bet 33?
What sort of range are you expecting someone with a very tight 3bet flatting range to have?
 
Deco said:
In a 3bet pot it will be marginally better as at showdown we can beat ace high if us and villain both checked down.

Do you 3bet 33?
What sort of range are you expecting someone with a very tight 3bet flatting range to have?
Click to expand...
Yes, I 3-bet with 33 in this spot for the same reasons as 99.

I expect most TAGs to flat here much wider than you think at least at 100nl and below. I'm probably bad to ask since I played crazy laggy, and people just didn't want to give up against me. But in general I'd see calls with a much wider range than you prolly expect. Maybe JJ-77, QJs+, KJs+, AJs, AQ, KQ? And obviously here the guy showed up with A4s. So for that reason alone, 99 is better than 72o.

Second, flopping a set on 12% of flops is seriously a non-trivial addition to our EV. Flops you can continue with on with 27 don't exist.
 
c9h13no3 said:
Yes, I 3-bet with 33 in this spot for the same reasons as 99.
Flops you can continue with on with 27 don't exist.
Click to expand...

And flops you can continue on with 33 do? We want a hand that flops well such as KJ/Q9 in our 3bet bluffing range not hands that make underpairs in the hope we bing a set.

I don't 3bet 99 in this spot for the same reasons as 33.
 
Back
Top