Of course I do, because I don't raise 26%+ from there

Well I do. Sometimes they even all fold preflop.

R u serious ?
do you really me to be able to answer that like that ?
I would gladly answer your hands you would post tho.
Surely you have some in your date base .

I do know some of it, but in the games I play you can almost never profitably showdown 33 or A7 unimproved, and most of the other higher level theory is similarly inapplicable. I tend to forget a lot of what I have read because it's unusable.

Do you use your theory often in games you play? I only remember you posting about playing in 4/8 games, where this kind of stuff should be even less useful.

I'm not about to dig through my hands looking for an example. However, I can probably tell you how you're going to play JTs and QTs:

3 bet preflop and hope to get a heads up pot.

bet the flop 100%.

bet the turn with any pair or better, or any good draw, checking otherwise.

call my river bet with Queen high, fold Jack high, or check behind on the river unimproved.

Sound about right?

We'll if you are able to make money with those ( not just when it End up you vs BB which is the best results) , taking account all those multiway pot and when you get 3bet, from the HJ , it is great but me I know I couldn't .
I would get 3bet to death .

No I just click buttons.

So they never bluff? That's even more ev that you realize when the river checks through.

I strongly disagree with this. Knowing the theory is important so you can know where your ev is coming from.

No, people do bluff occasionally, but not far out of line from what would be considered optimal (probably by accident).

But headsup pots are extremely unusual in almost all live games. Even though occasionally a hand like these unimproved will still be the best hand on the river, they just can't take the multiway heat.

The thing is, you won't be able to make much money, much less exceed your starting equity.

Quite the dubious assumption.

Speaking of the average player here, of course some bluff too much and some almost never. Some players' tendencies are exploitable, but IMO very few bluff so much that you can profitably take a weak ace high to showdown much of the time.

Then check fold and realize tons of ev when they check back their whiffs.

They will check back lot Ahigh which you won't win either .

aaron w cut it out please

guys this kind of argument isn't welcome. please do better.

Everything Bob has posted in this thread seems totally off topic to me.

Let me get this right, montrealcorp:
If we are raising A7o, 33 from the HJ, and a good player is behind us, then we are always getting 3-bet and never getting heads up with the blinds.
At the same time, the range we're up against is a top 15% range.

Do you see how this is logically inconsistent?

Rob, I tried to talk about the flop decision here in my first post in this thread:

Unfortunately the thread got derailed into a preflop discussion. This was not my intention, but I apologize anyways for engaging in the off topic discussion. If you want to go back to talking about the flop decision, that's cool with me.

Unfortunately, it got derailed???

Summary of that first post:

"Doesn't matter what you do" to question asked.

[Tons of mumbo jumbo starting the derail].

I laid out my entire flop strategy...

Hopefully everyone is happy that feelings about stuff have gotten out. Sounds like discussion has moved on to the flop.

I'll throw in a worthless $0.02.

AKo with none of the flush draw on a J85 is supposed to be a meh spot. Whatever our range is, we 3 bet OOP and both the original raiser and the cold caller should like board better than we do. I'd expect a couple of schools of thought on how to play from here, based on assumptions about how the "competent" player and the "fishy" one play post flop. Assuming a pretty tight 3 betting range preflop (the bad guys will, even if we're looser), we don't have a lot of J's and our 8's mostly walk in pairs. 2 of our 6 outs to draw to the best hand are dubious and even if we hit turned black A, we're fading a bunch of cards on the river.

I didn't read the thread above carefully, but I would love to see people back up their flop arguments with stoves. Don't really care about exact % of equity as much as the assumptions that go into villain ranges. If the fish is playing a lot of middle suited connector, 1-gap, 2-gap hands, did he just smash the flop?

Without any deep thought, I totally get the check and call 1 bet folks. If there were two cold callers, I think it would be certain. Not as sure here in a 3 way pot.

I totally agree with this. I think that if your thought process looks like this:

1) I might have the best hand sometimes.
2) I'm out of position to two opponents that have all the good draws in range.

and somehow you decide to bet the flop based on that? I think that's a poor thought process.

yeah maybe.

post 53, opening statement

post 58

post 77

just saying...

I agree that the number of opponents matters, as do their ranges.

Against three players, it probably doesn't matter because you're never winning without the best hand, so you're just going to have to make your pair before you profit. But since you do this about a third of the time and you're only putting in 25% of the money, this isn't a big deal.

Against one player, you have enough of a chance to win this without showdown plus a good enough chance of still having the best hand that betting is completely reasonable.

And, of course, two players is the hard case. But one drawback to this line of thinking is if your 3 betting range is narrow and you only ever checked your no pair (or no pair/no draw) hands then your play is going to be too transparent. If you have a wider 3-betting range*, you might have enough hands in there for a reasonable mix of flop checks. Or (as I had suggested before), if you're disciplined enough to check big hands sometimes to create that balance you could also take that route.

* Note: This is 3-betting after an MP raise and a LP coldcall, not just 3-betting against an opener. So you will have a much wider calling range and a much smaller 3-betting range. I would 3-bet ATs against an open-raise but just call with a cold-caller in between. (And if the limper went first, I would 3-bet against what I would read as a suspected iso-raise.)