Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek
I don't know what else to say. Take notice the next time you see a river bet, a raise, and then the original better 3bet. This is an *extremely* nuttish line for the majority of MUBSy low limit players. In fact, most second nut hands here will typically just call here, as they proudly read the board and state that there is a better hand out there; and, honestly, unless they are up against a horrible opponent who is capable of calling a 3bet on the river with a worse hand, I can't even argue that it's all that horrible a play.
But, and this is something I'm really beginning to notice in the differences between posters, it all boils down to our own experiences. If you're in a room where people are 3betting the river with bottom two, then obviously your thoughts on the matter are going to be different than mine (where most of my experiences show most regs are flatting the second nuts here).
ETA: Also, this has nothing to do with me being a nit or not as I'm not basing my response based on how opponents react to me in this spot. I'm stating how *everyone* at my typical table plays against *everyone* else (from the nits all the way up to the action players). Our experiences simply differ, imo.
Gbutstillnotfolding,atleastweagreeonthatG
Well sorry if I've mischaracterized you here, but I've seen many threads where most players are saying "easy call" or "shove" and you're like "maybe we should fold."
Maybe this hand and others are in fact a fold in your game. But I can't believe that represents poker players in general.
I think you're definitely right that it varies greatly depending where you're playing. It's not like online games where generally one move is either correct or not. Folding might be correct in locations A, B, C, and D, but calling is correct in locations E-Z. Only OP knows for sure what kind of room this is, but I'm not folding this in a million years. Players will show up with 66, 33, A2, AK, A3, and A6, all a decent amount of the time, and occasionally even 63. I've even seen players get it in with TP here.
Hero's line looks strong but not super strong. He checks behind on the flop, which eliminates sets by the same logic others have used towards villain, calls a small probe bet on the turn, then makes a decent raise over what looks like a pot stab on the river. More than anything it looks like the Ace helped OP. I just can't picture that many players who are afraid their 2 pair is no good because OP has slowplayed a set.
Let's just do an equity calculation. There are 6 combos 33 and 66 that a fish could easily play this way, slowplaying on the flop then calling on the vier and leading the turn. That's 6 combos. There are 3 combos AK, 9 combos A3, 9 combos A2, and 9 combos A6, and villain has these hands some of the time on a dry board. Let's say he 3-bets these hands 1/3 the time once the Ace arrives. Okay so that's 10 more combos for 16 total. And he 3-bets 63 1/9 the time (he's an unknown--could be a crazy LAG). That's 17 combos total. Let's add some maniac hands: AQ, AJ, AT, that the maniac thinks he's value-betting 1/18 times. That makes 19 combos total. Now let's add the rest of the one pair Aces, and suppose a lunatic value bets them 1/30 times. That's 2 more combos making 21 total. Notice we've completely avoided river bluffs, as maniacs sometimes do, and this is in fact not a terrible bluff card as it completes a straight and adds additional pressure supporting villain hit the Ace. But whatever, let's ignore that. We have 21 combos total we beat, and we lose to 16 combos of 54 and 3 combos of AA. It's not very likely he'd check AA on this flop, but let's count it. Also not likely he's calling every 54, but let's count it.
We're still fine.
More realistically, let's say he has AA 1/3 the time for 1 combo, and he calls 54s 3/4 the time and 54o 1/3 the time. This makes 8 combos we're behind and 21 we're ahead.
Note we only need be ahead so that P<(X)/(X+Y) where X is hands we beat, Y is hands we lose to, and P is pot odds. The pot odds are .243
We're beating X combos and losing to 8, with P = .243, so X > 2.56
For this model we only need to beat 2.56 COMBOS of hands. That's less than one set. And this model assumes we're beating 21 on average.
Now let's look at a more pessimistic case scenario. The same villain who called an UTG raise with 54o is going to play 2 pair more aggressively than we assume, but forget all that. This villain is crazy. He has 3 combos of AA and all 16 combos of 54. Now .243 < X/(X+16) gives X > 5.13 combos.
This is literally the most pessimistic scenario imaginable--villain only 3-bets with sets and the straight, and moreover, he plays all the straights (except 33 and 66 which maybe he folds sometimes because he's clairvoyant). We sill only need to beat 6.14 combos! That's an extra 4.14 combos of AK, A2, A3, and A6, and random spazz hands like AQ. Since there are so damn many of these combos he barely need to play them at all to get to 4.14 combos. Plus he can bluff once in a blue moon.
A more realistic, but still pessimistic assumption, is he plays all his sets and all his straights. We lose to 16 hands of 54. Now X > 5.13. If he even 3-bets the sets on the river most of the time and once in a blue moon 3-bets worse, we are good.
Where I play this is an easy call. If that's not true where you live, those are unusually passive games.
P.S. - if 3-betting AI on the river is "damn nuttish most of the time against 99% of players," you want to call anyway?