10/20 Stud8 - naked Aces vs uncoordinated board

[Joe Tall]

Originally Posted by electrical

Precisely why it looks like a peel.

Also why I like a check-raise.

[skoldpadda]

Originally Posted by ChipsAhoya

yeah betting 4th is bad.

Brilliant analysis. It's great when a bracelet winner contributes so meaningfully to a thread discussing a hand.

[electrical]

Originally Posted by Joe Tall

Also why I like a check-raise.

I'd rather do that for more money later. If you c/r 4th villain will go on the defensive earlier.

[camz2895]

Originally Posted by skoldpadda

Brilliant analysis. It's great when a bracelet winner contributes so meaningfully to a thread discussing a hand.

did you not see electrical's response?

[Marco Trevix]

Sorry for the intrusion, exactly what do you mean for "peel"?

Thanks!

[skoldpadda]

Originally Posted by Marco Trevix

Sorry for the intrusion, exactly what do you mean for "peel"?

Thanks!

Here's what I think people mean by the word "peel":

Taking an extra card (not folding/seeing the next street of action) when your equity may be questionable.

I don't consider it the equivalent of "floating" in a big bet game, but it's similar. With floating, you generally have little to no equity, but in peeling, you tend to have some backdoor/runner potential or a weaker, marginal hand.

I'm not sure there is a formal definition anywhere, but in the context of hand discussion, this is basically what I consider peeling to mean.

[electrical]

Yeah, I think of peeling as making a known -EV call hoping to develop equity for a good implied odds position later in the hand. The logic is that the next street's decision will be close to automatic, and there is enough value in getting there to pay for the error of making the call.

Generally, bad players peel almost always, good players do it rarely and selectively against opponents most likely to make getting there profitable.

[ChipsAhoya]

Originally Posted by skoldpadda

Brilliant analysis. It's great when a bracelet winner contributes so meaningfully to a thread discussing a hand.

Originally Posted by camz2895

did you not see electrical's response?

yeah, I don't have much to "add" here other than to agree w/ Steve and Dan...

[Blizzuff]

Are you three-betting your entire range of (xx)A hands on third here? Maybe that's standard at that level and this is a silly question, but a c/c on fourth for disguise loses value if you're not three-betting really wide if not your entire range.

[Joe Tall]

Originally Posted by electrical

I'd rather do that for more money later. If you c/r 4th villain will go on the defensive earlier.

There are too many things that have to be right to get a c/r in on 5th.

[Sirocko]

Originally Posted by Blizzuff

Are you three-betting your entire range of (xx)A hands on third here? Maybe that's standard at that level and this is a silly question, but a c/c on fourth for disguise loses value if you're not three-betting really wide if not your entire range.

I woudnt say entire range, but a very large % of it.

[electrical]

Originally Posted by Blizzuff

Are you three-betting your entire range of (xx)A hands on third here? Maybe that's standard at that level and this is a silly question, but a c/c on fourth for disguise loses value if you're not three-betting really wide if not your entire range.

I feel like a chimp explaining bananas here but re-raising any starting low showing an Ace with the bring-in yet to act is such a standard play it will be the first thing to occur to any villain, which is why our flat on Four looks like a peel. Looking like a peel is good here because villain will be encouraged to bet all his one-pair hands and low draws when we brick or the cards break even on Five, and he may keep coming if we happen to pair up, other than the case Ace, which I'm willing to risk.

[Blizzuff]

Originally Posted by electrical

I feel like a chimp explaining bananas here but re-raising any starting low showing an Ace with the bring-in yet to act is such a standard play it will be the first thing to occur to any villain, which is why our flat on Four looks like a peel. Looking like a peel is good here because villain will be encouraged to bet all his one-pair hands and low draws when we brick or the cards break even on Five, and he may keep coming if we happen to pair up, other than the case Ace, which I'm willing to risk.

Well, thanks for humoring my plebeian poker mind, but the OP just posted above you that he's not 3-betting his entire range here. So even if three betting 100% is super standard here, it's still crucial long-term that the OP is three betting wide-ish at minimum.

Originally Posted by Sirocko

I woudnt say entire range, but a very large % of it.

I think this is a bit interesting. While a "very large %" is probably enough to make c/c'ing 4th here a viable play, when you 3-bet enough for that to be the case, I feel like you are in the territory where you should probably 3-bet 100% of your playable range here. If I assume that "a very large %" would include big pair hands and strongly coordinated low hands. It's difficult to balance limping only your rough low hands, although I suppose you could make a case for limping some of your strong draw hands where you don't mind inducing action multi-way. Shrug.

[electrical]

Originally Posted by Blizzuff

Well, thanks for humoring my plebeian poker mind, but the OP just posted above you that he's not 3-betting his entire range here. So even if three betting 100% is super standard here, it's still crucial long-term that the OP is three betting wide-ish at minimum.

No offense intended, just seemed like a pretty common situation. Agree completely regarding villains with history, but vs unknowns this would still be a presumption in most games.

It's difficult to balance limping only your rough low hands...

You've articulated why re-raising all playable hands on Third is so standard. Gets rid of the bring and makes it more likely that weak hi hands hold up and preserves momentum for FE.

[Marco Trevix]

Skolpadda and electrical thanks for your answers!