AQo 3b pot vs triple check + river c/r - Page 2 - Small Stakes Full Ring Games

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Strategy Small Stakes Full Ring

AQo 3b pot vs triple check + river c/r

...

Page 2 of 2

1 2

Page 2 of 2

1 2

09-03-2014 , 05:00 PM

#26

Babarberousse

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 1,752

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkmann

nvm I underestimated the tightness of utg in FR, so yeah. 6m player here

Yeah, especially this kind of villain. These guys almost literally open a "GII range".

09-03-2014 , 05:52 PM

#27

pontylad

banned

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,720

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkmann

Wat?

You dont wanna 3bet vs someone who defends tons of worse?

U ****in wot m8? just kidding. I'm having to assume villain is the average type of 13/11 at 100 fr since we don't really have a ton of stats, vs such we really can not 3 bet him for value with AQo. It's our best 3 bet bluff though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by just_grindin

Idk much about fr but if villain ever has a 4 bet range in this spot then I think a cbet on the flop definitely has some merits.

Again, viewing villain as the average type 13/11 then he is usually going to have an extremely low 4 bet range. I personally don't think I cbet flop, since am not sure it really achieves much unless you're planning on firing turn on almost any card, I just think we have better hands to start barrelling off with. Am sure cbetting can be fine, I just prefer to do it with a different part of my range.

09-03-2014 , 08:36 PM

#28

just_grindin

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,263

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babarberousse

Given the tightness of this kind of EP range we can indeed assume villain's 4b range is merged. Though as you mentioned, he doesn't necessarily have a 4b range in this spot.

But I'm pretty sure he's not going to flat AQ oop. We didn't have enough 3betting history yet.

We can try to assess the profitability of a cbet with these assumptions:
Let's assume he 4bets AA/KK 8 out of 9 times: that's 1 combos left that won't fold to a cbet.
He flats QQ 66% of the time: 2 combos.
He flats with JJ 50% (I think he'd fold the other 50%): 3 combos
He flats AK 50%: 6 combos

If we assume a half pot cbet will make AK fold 66% of the time, then we make him fold 4/12 combos = 33% which makes the cbet b/e. We also have about 20% equity vs his continuation range (we had about the same equity against his range OTF).

So, depending on how we change these assumptions we can assess whether a cbet is profitable or not.
Overall, I'd be tempted to say he has less AK than this on the flop. And if he has that many of them, then he's probably not folding so much to a hp cbet.

I think this analysis is pretty good. I'm convinced that multiple barrells improves this though depending on if villain is just zomg overpair calling to the river on good runouts.

09-04-2014 , 03:53 PM

#29

blakkman08

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,134

Dunno I personally think vs that type of player calling AQ is wayyy better than turning it into a bluff. Axs and KQo are much better hands to pull your move with and gain more from betting postflop (more better hands we want to fold out ldo)
I d only go 3betting AQo here if I was sure a flat isn't profitable - fwiw if a flat isn't profitable you prob want to fold AQ there- and only setmine vs that type of villain.

Hard to find a scenario where a 3b is the best option for me at least

09-04-2014 , 06:03 PM

#30

pontylad

banned

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,720

If it's not a profitable call spot and you want to fold it, then what do you 3 bet bluff?

09-04-2014 , 06:30 PM

#31

just_grindin

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,263

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakkman08

Personally blocking more of his tight opening range with the Q is a bigger plus for me here than just blocking the A in an Axs hand.

09-04-2014 , 11:46 PM

#32

troloyolo

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 613

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babarberousse

Hi everyone,

I 3b AQo pre for two reasons:
- Villain seemed nitty so I don't think AQo would be good enough to call (I'd call with AQs however).
- At lower stakes I'd usually 3b AJs vs an UTG open and flat AQo. Here, I definitely didn't want to flat and decided to "tighten" my ranges which meant that AQo reached the "top of my folding range".

What do you think of this reasoning?

No money on pokerstars, everybody's balanced.

09-06-2014 , 02:59 PM

#33

blakkman08

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,134

Quote:

Originally Posted by pontylad

If it's not a profitable call spot and you want to fold it, then what do you 3 bet bluff?

I believe we were going off the assumption that the guy barely ever folds vs 3bets. Sounds like we need to adjust and not 3b him as a bluff almost ever.

AQ does pretty well vs his entire opening range, but terribly vs his continuing range after we 3b which is why I think a flat is superior.

KQ does badly vs both but has a decent bit to gain from a 3b, it can bluff on Acc flops which it actually doesn't block from appearing, it can bluff on lower boards and hope ace high hands fold etc etc.

Not that I think 3bbluffing that villain is a good idea at all I d just not pick a hand with as much equity vs his total range as AQ to do it if I had to