Is this serious or did you just want to act like you disagree with me so you could flame me in the other thread as a coach who shouldn't be coaching because he doesn't currently play? I'm pretty sure it's just the latter, but in case it's not can you post what ranges you are assigning that can make this make any sense?

How is it possible that our hand is *THAT* strong here that we want to 3-bet here and it's so much better than calling, but calling is slightly better than folding? Why? What is our hand so vulnerable against when it has BDFD blockers and there are no overcards that makes calling only slightly better than folding but 3-betting is so awesome? If 3-betting is good, isn't calling way better than folding?

This is a strat forum. This is not the place for you two to have this out. Maybe you should get together at a boxing ring and work it out, but anywhere but here.

Any more posts along the lines that you two have been taking will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including being banned.

Keyser, you made your point in the NVG thread. Move on.

I've written a lot of words ITT about why I feel 3betting is best. Would you care to go through and respond to my arguments?

I've expressed why I dislike 3-betting, you've expressed why you like 3-betting. Let's let the thread die and move on.

I've made 10,000+ posts on 2p2 because I truly enjoy having strategy conversations. It makes me better to articulate my thoughts and respond to counter arguments. I feel as if I have responded to your arguments in many different places but I feel that you have not returned the favor.

I don't think strategy discussions should be about dueling oratories. I enjoy having these discussions especially with people who approach poker in a different way than I do, which is very much the case with you. I would be much appreciative if you could respond to my arguments. I believe that an impartial observer would agree that I was responsive toward your points but that you were not responsive toward mine. That frustrated me and because I'm immature on the Internet I took it too far and I apologize for that.

I understand that, but at this point I would simply like to move on and feel TTHRIC.

@ keyser

ty for taking the time to reply to that. also, i'm aware of who Bruut is, and definitely respect his opinion, that being said it's not in my nature to take that as gospel without logistical backup. it seems impossible to me for 3betting to be that much greater than calling if calling is only slighter better than folding. this cannot be correct under given any set of rational assumptions

to clarify, what i was trying to get at in that post is this

AK being a flop 3bet and KT being a flop bet/call are logically inconsistent imo

im at work now but when i get home i'll happily pad this argument out properly

"Matt has liked game theory ever since taking a course on it at UCLA, and now focuses primarily on the math and theory behind poker for designing ranges and analyzing complex situations. Since Black Friday, Matt has not played but instead focused purely on the mathematics behind the game, which is one of the reasons why almost all of his videos on the site are theory and/or flopzilla based.today. "

Matthew Janda's profile now updated.

Are you happy now Keyser?

Why i think 3bet>>>>>call>fold is because:

I think that will show the biggest profit in a vacuum. What i think about in a hand is, how can i let my opponent make the biggest mistake in terms of losing the most or folding the best hand etc.

If you put your opponent on a range here, its either going to state that we are ahead or behind vs his range. Vs some players this flop is a bet/fold.

Versus villain described in the OP(even though we have a small sample size) I think we are ahead of his range. Why? Enough random bluff raises/fd's/weaker kings. Versus that range i think 3betting the flop is the best play because he can make the biggest mistake of jamming it in with all the worse hands or make a pot committing bad call(nl50 you never know).

Why i think its much better than calling is: pot control. Lets say he raises this flop with KJo. Is he going to value bet twice on blank cards? Lots of scare cards can come that will stop him from betting as well. If he has lets say 67 of spades. Is he going to bet turn and bet river on blanks? Will he take a free card on the turn? We have 66% vs that hand on the flop, why not get it in? Its not like this is the best board ever for us.

I dont like calling because it will be a big guessing game. He can decide what to do. He can take free cards, pot control all the weaker hands. We want those to make a bigger mistake. If he has a set, so be it. Call will only ever be > 3bet when villain is a bluffy maniac, and then again bluffy maniacs might spew more over the top if you 3bet here.

Its also much easier to play, dont make every street into a big hero spot. What i think is that most people win 20bb vs KJo here but always lose 100bb vs a set.

Thanks for this and this all makes sense.

I still think given the ranges you gave calling is going to be much better than folding, but 3-betting is better than calling as you assign more random FD/Kx/etc. This is especially if you think he raises flop here and pot controls turn (which I imagine we can both agree this is a bad board texture to do it on compared to T83 or something, but people may still do it sometimes).

ty for responding

i'm assuming the way you're actually weighting that initial statement is you think 3betting is clearly a better play than both calling and folding, rather than you think calling is slightly better than folding?

given the range you have given villain calling flop has to be far better than folding if we assume we only have those options?

Yes calling is far better than folding. But i just wanted to emphasize that i thought 3betting was superior to calling.

"Matt has liked game theory ever since taking a course on it at UCLA, and now focuses primarily on the math and theory behind poker for designing ranges and analyzing complex situations. Since Black Friday, Matt has not played but instead focused purely on the mathematics behind the game, which is one of the reasons why almost all of his videos on the site are theory and/or flopzilla based.today. "

Reading this updated profile, I don't think CR did it maliciously but more likely a minor negligence.

I think they over did it. The profile says nothing about Janda being a big winner playing 200NL when he did play. It should also mention the fact that if it weren't for BF, he would still be playing and that he would most likely still be winning at online poker.

The new profile just makes it sound like some geeky college student doing poker math in the backroom of dorm somewhere.

Would you still 3bet if we were IP and villain was c/r'ing?

Well thats a whole different situation, because then we flat AK in the bb..