Curious...what would constitute "3-betting equity"? Not in terms of specific hands (I'm sure AA and KK would qualify) but in terms of equity vs players in and however many players we might anticipate behind us?

Maybe grab equilab and play around with some assumptions. Give the tight player AK, AKs, 99+. Give everyone else your assumed ranges. Does 88 have a pure equity advantage? Do you like getting 4 bet? That's a good baseline. Then you have to think about realized equity. The hot/cold sim assumes you get to see 5 board cards. With 88 and a guy with a really strong range, do you get to see all 5?

My assumption is that we're set mining most of the time, so we're wanting 8.5:1-ish odds -- it depends on your assumptions about how often sets win. We're not getting those odds. We're getting nice implied odds to suck out on a big hand with a bunch of callers. We have good position, meh relative position, and we're facing a nit who decided to put in more money. You can change those assumptions and come up with different advice.

I think I'll do as you suggest. "Pure" hot/cold equity advantage meaning (I assume) anything more than the % I represent in the pot (i.e. >33% with three players, >25% with four, etc.)?

The "realized equity" is a bit more subjective I would guess, part of a judgment call about how well a hand plays post-flop vs. one or multiple opponents. I wonder (haven't run the scenarios yet) what KQs or QJs would offer in OP's spot in terms of hot/cold equity. The realized equity issue would be more favorable, I would think, but again, I'm not aware of how one might measure that empirically.

Perfect start.

You're making educated guesses. You're tilting the scale from hot/cold to realized equity based on experience. If you have a hand that hates most flops and has to fold a lot, it isn't going to realize the equity of 5 board cards. AA is seeing a lot of turns and rivers, so it gets its fair share more often.

I call. 3 betting seems suicidal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6 handed, UTG raises, folds to us in the BB with 7-5o

Call?
Fold?

I'd fold that 75o.

It's not even close. My calling/3bet range here is very narrow.

I think you know this is a call here.

Me too. I may occasionally raise a K2s on the button against the passive players, and rep an ace if it comes as a pure bluff. bet/bet/bet. Very infrequent though.

88 could be a 3 bet there if the coldcallers are bad enough. I'd call without more information though.

In small stakes games, been duking out 8/16 kill, and occasional 20/40, I've been raising KJ in the blinds against weak opponents who limp, early limp, late limp. I have KJ, raise to throw my opponents off. My thinking is that I'll flop a pair 1/3 times, and it'll rate to have their pair kicked, or their second pair beat. Sometimes I'm behind an ace-rag, but I can out flop it, and my equity isn't terrible against ace-rag. Also, I can do the exact same thing with a mid-high pair, and then check-raise the flop, usually checking the KJ if missing my pair. I play against a lot of the same people, am a known in the card club. Is this a good/bad play?

I have played around with equilab a lot for that spot in the big blind and I suggest you do the same.

I'm raising KJo there vs anyone but proven tight passive limpers, but I don't think it's a mandatory raise by any means.

I like raising 88+ there too, but if I like the flop then I'm betting it. Check raising the flop after raising preflop will allow your many opponents to hit overcards for free, which is bad.

You'd be amazed at how apt the field is, at least in the 8/16 game, to put you on AK, and bet any pair after several checks. It gets checked around like 5% of the time. Again, this is an area where I mix-it-up, much more inclined to try it with AA than TT. Also, even if you bet, they may raise you with a low top-pair so you get only 2 bets instead of 3.

This is just more reason to bet 3 bet strong hands on the flop.

Yah, I agree, pointing out a good reason not to do the atypical play. Letting it get checked around feels like watching a vase slowly hitting the ground and smashing into a million pieces.

I'd consider going 3 with the 88, except I'm too paranoid about facing 4 bets, and being out of position. If he goes 4, and he sometimes has AK, then you really haven't learned anything about his had that's useful by going 3, and are now paying 4 to hit a set. 2 is already a good deal, and while you may miss-out on some EV from the cold callers, some respect to the tight player is imo called for. AK instead of 88 I'd probably go 3 even against this tight range every time.

Curious, there was a kill pot in the BB, 8/16 half-kill. Raise in early, I even commented with his hollywood act to the dealer (big pair), 3 cold calls. I look down and see Ac9c. I tank, and decide to call on the CO. This one seemed really close.

Doesn't seem that close to me, you have a suited ace and likely at least five others are going to the flop, someone having a big pair sucks but it's fine.

Why do you want to play unsuited garbage hands heads up in a small pot out of position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't close at all.

Snap call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you say 3 cold calls, do you mean 3 as in three players, or 3 as in BTN-3?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=49

3 players

I just revamped my 6h low limit ($2/4 and $3/6) opening standards from position 2 ("HJ"). Looking for about 22% RFI I came up with some hands using hot/cold equity that just intuitively I think are questionable:

QTo, A3s-A4s, 87s, K9o

In selecting the 22% I made slight adjustments in order to favor some of the suited connectors and pairs over non-suited holdings. What do you think about opening with the above hands from this "early" position?

I should not open K9o or QTo. The others I'd open in a mid-stakes time game. If paying rake, even when the game is softer than mid-stakes, I probably should dump 87s.

Edit: A3s is probably a fold too. So I should have just said A4s for the win!