In a perfect world you would get all the chips in here against a flush draw and overpair and lose about a third of the time.

Other times you'll get it in against two higher sets and occasionally quad up.

No one single result can ever give you the precise mathematical expectation for a hand unless someone's drawing dead. That's why single results mean f-all.

Pokerstove gives me this

Board: 4c Qc 3d
Dead:

equity
Hand 0: 41.264% { 3c3h }
Hand 1: 48.327% { 44, AcKc, Ac5c, Ac2c, 7c6c, 7d6d, 6c5c }
Hand 2: 10.409% { QQ+, AcKc, AQs, KQs, AQo, KQo }

Is my range for V2 too tight?

equity
Hand 0: 49.517% { 3c3h }
Hand 1: 50.483% { 44, AcKc, Ac5c, Ac2c, 7c6c, 7d6d, 6c5c }

Against just V2, which applies to the sidepot, we have less than 50% equity. I realize this is super thin and doesn't really apply practically, but I'm interested in the theoretical case.

Let's assume my above range for V2 is correct. Since we have less than 50% equity, we lose a little money by raising. The only reason to get it in on the flop is if V2 can hurt us more in the turn and river betting if we have money behind. I don't think V2 can, but I'm not sure. Obviously we always give up on club turns. V2 is never going to bluff with club draws on non-club turns because he still won't be able to beat V1. So my first thought is that we can always fold if he bets, and bet if he checks. But then I realized that if V2 plays perfectly he should bluff some non-club turns, probably with the NFD, so that he gets me to fold and freerolls hitting clubs against V1.

Anyway, V2 isn't thinking this much in real life, but I think it's interesting to think about the optimal strategy. It gets really interesting because of V1 all in. I agree that shoving this correct in real life since V2 probably has a wider range than I gave him.

Results

Pre is fine jam flop for value ainec. All the money is getting in no matter how the action goes on flop/turn so if v2 has a fd you might as well charge him for it.

Who cares it goes mw? Just play your 3s for set value strictly. Stacks are deep enough. Both raising and limping is fine. Limping is never a "mistake" here if sets get paid off.

Preflop comes down to image imo... if things are going well I raise without much thought, but if I've been liberally raising limpers and losing most battles postflop then I change gears a little and limp.

Ofc the other limpers' ranges crush us. Still doesn't matter a great deal when we're playing for set value strictly. Don't make assumptions. I like raising better but limping is not a mistake unless we have an aggro behind who is going to be raising a lot. Even then, deep and with expected overcallers before the action gets back to us it's not big deal if one of the villains is bad enough. You can make a case that limping along is less profitable (though our cbets might be spew post vs sticky passive station), but less profitable means not optimal. It doesn't = mistake. A mistake is a downright -EV play. At least in my book.

Doesn't Hero's image suffer (become less tight) every time he raises pre-flop with 33 and c-bet bluffs on overcard boards? If he did this frequently throughout the session, then Hero will no longer have a tight image. Sure, every once in awhile, loose aggressive plays like that are fine, but make them continually and he goes from TAG to LAG. Am I wrong?

VS

No that's no basis.

Optimal > profitable > unprofitable
Best play > good play > mistake

That doesn't change, whether we're in a strat forum or not.

This thread is really interesting to me. The concept of raising with 33 pre is new to me. I'm guessing position has a lot to do with that? Also, what would be the plan if we raise to $25 and then get re-raised in this spot?

Nope, still a non-optimal play. If you're stuck it's most likely because you made EV- plays. And one session results is irrelevant. If a play is profitable, whether it's the *most* profitable or not, you'll still show a profit long term.

Limping is good pre, feel like raising in that spot you're like always gonna get callers and the flop will never be good. Raise on flop is good too and there is no way your folding.

LuckyAceFour: What are you talking about? Explain, why you think a raise is good at all.

Raising is terrible here, it'll be multiway, you'll flop nothing a large percentage of the time, and you won't have a profitable cbet on most flops multiway (people won't be folding enough), and 33 will have 2outs when called.

I think a raise is just plain BAD, here.

Did you read the hand history? It's a loose 1/3 live game, no one is folding. This should be obvious because there are four players to the flop with a ~6.6bb raise. The field is NOT getting thinned and four way you are not getting a profitable cbet bluff, and when you are it's only slightly profitable maybe worth 1bb, when you risked ~6.6bb's (if you raised to 20).


Also your logic MUST be flawed because you're saying a cbet/double barrel bluff will be profitable but ALSO your hand is disguised and you'll stack, these cannot be both true DUCY?

Limping > Folding > Raising

Lucky, thanks for persisting with your line of argument, I think it's actually a very useful debate to have because having a small or medium PP in late position vs limpers is actually a very common situation and therefore a far more useful discussion to have in terms of win rate than folding KK vs AA pre or whatever.

I think the easy, (maybe cop out) answer is...raising or calling depends on table dynamics, villains, stack sizes, our image and recent action etc.

I must say, my default position in this situation and with marginal hands in general at llsnl is to try to see cheap flops in position with high implied odds like small and medium pocket pairs, SCs, suited one gappers and unsuited connectors. I back myself to make more money post flop when I play fit or fold and flop a set or a big draw to make the slow dribble of chips when I fold on the flop worth it. I occasionally (once every two hours) bluff at a flop I miss or float and bluff a turn as well but my main profit here is hitting a big hand or draw when I limp and getting paid the maximum.


The basic arguments behind raising here would be that

1. we profit by sometimes collecting the blinds and the limps pre

2. we thin the field down enough so that when we miss the flop, we can bet off our opponents with c bets and bluffs on flop and turn enough to make up for the times when they hit and we can't shake them

3. we bloat the pot substantially and when we do hit a set/big draw, we can potentially win a bigger pot than when the same thing happens in a limped pot.


you know what, I'm not smart enough to follow this analysis off with a definitive answer on which of these nets the most profit over the long term.

I would think raising the PPs is higher variance but potentially more profitable if you are truly skilled in post flop LAG play..

I only have 700 hours of live, so can't compare with the pros/regs in terms of table experience and also detailed scientific analysis here (dgi help me please!), so I can only answer this in terms of my own style and approach which is that I normally see cheap flops but sometimes raise in these situations when the table has a lot of weak players who will limp fold pre or be easy to push off on the flop.

I'm actually happy to take them down pre when I raise and I pick up 5-6BB. I play a strong ABC style and struggle with my decision making when I miss flops/turns and want to keep firing more barrells rather than give up. So personally, I'm not sure the added profit from raising is realised because I potentially lose more when I miss than I make extra when I hit.

If raising pp's pre in position works for you, and fits in to your overall game plan then fine. But to push this strategy here as "the best " approach for everyone is simply wrong. Its not even taking into account the skill sets of the players.