Content-free chest-thumping ego posts aside, it actually is worth the time to understand how this stuff actually works and build some intuition about it. The elasticity of assumptions can easily be checked by just running some equity numbers.

Try running Q5o with a generic Qxx flop through an equity calculator against a set of 6 tight players (say, 20 VPIP/8 PFR) and then run it again against 6 loose players (say, 60 VPIP, 4 PFR). If your equity changes a lot, then that's a sign that your preflop assumptions are important. If your equity only changes a little bit, then those assumptions really aren't so important.

Change the flop a few times, too. Try a flush draw flop or a straight draw flop. Play around to see what features are important and which ones aren't.

In the end, you can believe whatever you want to believe. If you think that assumptions can realistically change the frequency of being outkicked from 10% to 90%, so be it.

Are we still arguing about this? Why?

fmop

It's a good question.

My best guess is that it's because there's not as much interest in learning as there used to be. I've presented my argument in both direct numerical calculation and simulation. The reply has been less than substantive.

Why would someone bother arguing if that's all they're going to do?

That would be a bad guess.

A better guess is that there aren't enough new players for your Wikipedia articles to be valuable.

Valuable or not, that doesn't really explain no-content "I THINK YOU INSULTED ME! RAR!" posts and clearly false estimates of probabilities. It's fine if it's "I already knew that." Then just skip over it.

(And if you think that a few paragraphs is too much reading, I would notch that one back in the category of "not interested in learning.")

Here's a bit of what I mean about learning:

Did anyone stop and re-think the river 3-bet? I gave an explicit hand count showing that assuming that *EVERY OTHER* flush was possibly out there, that 3-betting was plausible. (Which means that under more reasonable conditions, 3-betting is likely to be good.) It was just brushed off.

I think DD left a pretty big hint as to what he thinks about the river. But nobody inquired further, nobody appeared to rethink anything, and certainly nothing was discussed about it.

It might be the case that there aren't enough "new players" for these things to be worth looking into slowly and in some level of detail. But it could be that the "old players" just aren't paying enough attention to what the "new players" are doing and thinking about. And in so doing, they're passing off their bad habits.

In the same way, failing to critically analyze the idea that somehow it's "realistic" that you could be somewhere between 10% outkicked and 90% outkicked when you flop a pair of queens with a weak kicker from SB is another indication that there's really not as much thinking going on as there used to be.

I could be wrong, which is why I do these calculations. I show my work so that errors can be found. And errors have been found, which has helped me to learn more.

But if the best that this forum is searching for is authoritative-sounding posts in three sentences or less, then it makes sense as to why there's such a resistance to actual analysis.

It seems like on river with four high flush we do better calling because a) the river bettor is unlikely to fold for one more bet in this massive pot and b) we save a bet when the BB has a bigger flush. So if we raise we usually make the same as when we call (river bettor not super likely to call a 3-bet), but when we call, we save a bet when we are beat.

Also, the runout is pretty disconnected. Granted, the BB in this hand is a huge fish and is capable of raising non-flush hands on the river, but it’s hard to imagine many hands that call down on KJx rainbow and suddenly want to raise an innocuous 7 on the river unless they backdoored a flush.

He said it was good to 3 bet.

Consider what it takes for someone to bet and raise a river that brought in a straight and a flush. In the games I've played in when I was serious, people made thin value bet/raises and were sticky -- three betting is great. I can see DK making assumptions that these guys never raise without "having it" and adjusting accordingly.

FWIW, drawing to hit a flush, knowing our frenemy most likely has TPTK or better (and won't fold), and doing a little combo counting, I'm with you. 3 bet the little flush. If the villain with 7's is read to never raise without a flush on a flush board, with the tiny flush the math is different. The read is wrong in this one hand, but whatevs.

Didn't see a ton of people commenting on the river 3 bet. IIRC, montrealcorp didn't like it, you did, and DD agreed with you. Since MC didn't like the flop call, which many of us were between OK with and thinking it was an easy call... he seems on the tighter side of assumptions.

One nit
In limit games, spots where backdoor draws have reasonable odds relatively often. Could be they're thin spots, so folding them incorrectly is usually a small mistakes. Someone on the tighter side, you have overcard outs that prevent these folds.

When I started playing 6m I missed a lot of BD draws, and it probably was a pretty decent leak. I don't think that anyone should miss the difference between a hand that has nothing going for it and backdoor draws. As several of you pointed out, you add in the BDFD + BDSD to the backdoor trips and two pair draws (that don't complete straights for other people), and you're making a pretty big mistake to fold getting like 12-15:1 closing the action. Not being sticky enough in 3 bet pots makes you an easy mark. Who doesn't love an opponent who gives up easy after bloating a pot?

a) You're not thinking about the river bettor calling two. Do you think he folds a set here? There's a good chunk of his range that's going to pay off.

b) Yes, you might "save" a bet sometimes, but you're not thinking about the bets you might "earn." You also need to consider frequencies. Let's say you "save" a bet 50% of the time and "earn" two extra bets 50% of the time. How much are you leaving on the table by focusing on what you're saving instead of what you might earn?

You don't think you ever see T9 slowplay the turn here? And I know it's post-hoc reasoning, but you do see that 77 will raise the river. What about J7? I think you're being far too narrow in your read. It's almost as if you're expecting your opponent to play how you play. You would never slowplay the straight, so there's no reason for them to slowplay theirs. But that's not what happens in reality.

Wow, you really just can't let it go, can you. I let you have your 6 paragraph rehash of the exact same post you made earlier, and you continue. I like how you make all these assumptions about one sentence. If you want to really know what I meant, here it is.

Assuming your useless calculation to be 50% (this is why I chose 90 and 10 respectively), to be closer to 90% or closer to 10%, it would have to be > 70% or < 30%. That's literally what "closer to 90% or closer to 10%" means for the math impaired and why I chose those numbers. I don't actual think the actual number is going to be 90% or 10%, and didn't say that. I like how you change what I said.

But continue putting up straw mans and thinly veiled insults ("I'm not interested in learning", "I literally think the number is 90% and 10%", which obviously can't be true as they are on opposite ends of the % range).

Just because I stopped debating your stupid posts doesn't mean "I don't want to learn", lol. That might be my favorite one from you yet.

Here's something for you Aaron W. -- if 95% of people in a forum think your intentionally inflammatory posts are pure asshatigans, it's probably you and not them. Yes, a couple of mine are intentionally inflammatory, but I would bet the number who think your posts are "more asshatigan" than mine is higher. Like, literally bet money.

Do you ever wake up in the morning and wonder why SSLHE thinks your an asshat? You should. I literally think it would improve your life to ponder this, and I am actually being sincere and possibly as helpful as I can. Seriously.

If this is how you’ve been responding to every one else, I can see why your arguments are being brushed aside.

First off, I expect the river bettor (in this case, me) to fold non-flushes if the 43dd 3-bets here. Straights and flushes now beat whatever made hand the aggressor (in this case, me) has. I’m not paying off 3-bets when all the draws got there, even with a set. Joker, a hyperLAG, is just calling flop and turn and now all the sudden likes his hand enough to 3-bet the river? I don’t think you need to be a hand-reading genius to figure out that a set is no longer good here. I didn’t even want to call after he took two big bets to the face.

Second off, I did think about what I could earn, as well as what I could save. If I have the small flush, I expect the river bettor (me) to fold non-flushes (I basically never have straights) for 3-bets... so there’s no extra earn there. I expect the big blind to call with all worse hands and some better ones... so I make less than one big bet by raising the river, on average. If I call with the best hand, I still make that bet because the river bettor is far less likely to fold for one more bet than two big bets. Upside seems similar with calling and downside is reduced.

Maybe someone better than me can explain how raising is better because I’m not seeing it.

Third off, I do think most people will slow play a straight on a board of KJ28. Why do I think that? Because there is no straight, you dingus.

Lastly, the big blind is definitely capable of raising worse hands than a four high flush on the river and if anyone can have the fishy two pair hands like K7, J7, and 72 on the river in a pot that was three bets to her pre, it’s definitely her.

The jack of diamonds is unaccounted for, however. It’s pretty easy for her to have any number of Jx of diamond hands and I, as the PF 3-bettor, can still have AJdd, QJdd, and JTdd in my range. I can’t imagine it’s a slam dunk 3-bet on the river and honestly, given villain (me) in this spot, I highly doubt it’s even profitable.

FTR, I don’t think DD is actually saying villain should 3! the river. I read it as a response to how certain TDK comes across in his posts, and is a comment on his certainty rather than the actual hand.

I also would not 3! the river with the nut low flush.

2nd set is too high in your distribution to fold. You're not defending enough if you're willing to fold this, thus you need a great read to do so. You're giving the reasons here.
Your most likely hand after 3 betting is a strong 1 pair hands. People who have 2 pair on the river should be able to get value from you, because you have 6 combos of sets. Since I don't think you 3 bet T9s kids of hands, you don't have many straights. I'm not sure if you cbet a gutshot + BDFD. Thus, you can't bet/fold middle set which was the likely nuts on the turn when an odd 3 card straight + BDFD gets there. Not against anybody decent and aggressive. You called your buddy
Maybe these folds are good in tournaments, but in cash games it is a fur coat dilemma. If you fold this to him, he should play LAG pots with you and he should make crazy bets/raises on later streets. You correctly read him as aggro, thus he gets paid in these spots.
If you're going to draw to this hand preflop, you're going to miss out on 2BB on the river? How many flushes does DK get to have? What fraction of the bad player's range (the one who had 77) get to be flushes. I think you get a lot of sadfaced AA and TPTK+ calls from DK.


Again, I think you have to make some assumptions about ranges and what the raises mean. You can skew those, maybe correctly based on reads.

I think you’re trying to create a Matrix-like parlay to find a way for my hand to be good here (vs a 3-bet). It just never is.

It’s not a heads up spot. I’d never fold there, but:

Joker has to a) hope that BB has a weaker hand than him (if he has < JJJ) when she has basically zero bluffs in her range, b) hope that I will fold... what, a better hand? c) both players have to be simultaneously losing their minds.

I just don’t think he’s ever trying to find that perfect storm spot on the river.

Can we construct a range of hands he could feasibly play flop and turn this way and then 3-bet river that we still beat... knowing that a straight and flush got there and he’s facing a bet and raise into him? I don’t expect him to have K7 or J7 here and if he does somehow, I don’t think he would 3! the river with them. Does she slowplay 22 and he 3! with 77? I don’t think he’s on the river very often with 77. Maybe never. He never has KJ. Never has KK (not that I beat that). Never has AK or KQ. He never plays 22 this way.

Nope. I’m fine with folding JJ with confidence if it’s 3! back to me.

Also, he’s never flatting button pre with 77 in a 5-max.

This whole 3-bet the river discussion (I'm being nice) started after I mentioned that this Joker fellow didn't 3-bet bec he knew the danger. TDK came in a few posts later and said 3-betting was clearly terrible - which is not what I said - then DD criticized him for making absolutist statements regularly which I haven't noticed but DD obv has.

Here's my take: 3-betting the river is not clearly terrible. The reason not to 3-bet is that we've just been shocked. The river's been raised by someone other than who we (holding the flush) THINK should be raising the river and that's bad news.

After The Joker has made his flop call - make of it what you will - his post flop play is exactly what I would have done.

I think you overestimate how often DK will call two more bets with one pair. IMO, he rarely, probably never, calls them.

+1

LOL -- So if you thought that maybe it could go as high as 80%, then you would have said "closer to 110%"? I find this argumentation to be rather absurd.

You weren't interested in learning. I gave an explicit example, you didn't seem to understand the calculation, and then went off on a rant.

You're welcome to believe as you want. I would bet against your 95% number. I suspect it falls into the same category of exaggeration as your 10% and 90% numbers where you're making what I view to be an absurd backtrack.

I appreciate your sincerity. I sincerely believe that this is more about your ego and the ego of perhaps 2-4 other posters than it is about me.

You know very little about my life, and what you think about it is pretty irrelevant.

To be clear, if you fold JJ here, you're pretty much folding everything. If you fold all your sets, the only other hand in your range that are stronger are AQs that you decided to try to barrel off with and got lucky on the end or AJs that tried to make a run with second pair and got lucky on the end. That is an extremely narrow range.

I'm discounting that you would try to do the same with QJs and JTs, but I could be wrong. I just find it incongruous that you would be building pots with those hands while also being tight enough to be considering bet-folding a set on the river. And if you really would do that, it's an incredibly huge leak. You don't build up big pots to make tight folds.

Have you considered that a "hyperLAG" may be 3-betting the river with a weaker hand simply to drive you out? This is particularly true if you're willing to fold virtually 100% of your range to a 3-bet. You may be playing at a low enough level where this isn't happening to you, but you're setting yourself up to be extremely leaky and hyper-exploitable.

This assumption says that you expect SB to fold everything that's not the nuts. Clearly, it may be true of specifically how you play. But that doesn't make it a good analysis.

This much I would agree with. I do agree that there's some risk here. I think you've drastically undervalued the contribution of SB by specifying his play to be extremely tight.

Calling the river is basically 1 BB.

LOL -- Misremembered the board. But I backed into something, because this gives even *MORE* reason to think the flush is good because now it makes complete sense for the straight to be there.

More reason to think that 3-betting the river is actually good. The chances of being beat go down and down every time you add more hands that BB is possibly raising with. You only need SB to call *sometimes* to make it more profitable to 3-bet than to call.

To be clear, you're saying you 3-bet QJs and JTs from SB against an UTG raise and a two cold-callers?

It’s not an UTG raise (we’ve covered that). And yes... I think 3-betting those hands is profitable in this spot. They play well multiway. We have a hi-jack open and two cold calls in position from people that should be 3-betting. I’m pretty sure we have an equity edge here with QJs and JTs.

I don’t think anyone is going to convince me that folding a set on the river to a 3-bet is “tight.” Folding is “reasonable.” I’m snap-calling the big blind. Always. But a Joker 3-bet is never worse than set of jacks in this spot.

Nobody in my games is exploiting me with river 3-bets in multiway pots. Nobody.

Based on your read, Joker should be very confident of a). Your read here may be right in that she has "no bluffs" but she does appear to have a TON of bad value raises.

For b), given that you're folding virtually all of your range, it's not out of the question.

Given that you misread how he plays preflop and you were wrong about the flop play, it's not unreasonable to think that maybe the river is trickier than you think.

You might be right about this because he didn't 3! the river with a flush. Joker may well be in that window of skill level where you're exactly right to play it the way you did, but against a slightly better or slightly worse player, you could be doing things wrong.

The only thing I want to point out here is that you probably thought that he never has 43s here, either. And it turns out that you were wrong.

But do you bet the flop with second pair? I'm trying to wrap my mind around how you're playing those hands if you're willing to do things like bet-fold the river with a set.

(And yes, UTG means UTG in a 5-handed pot. I understand that.)

You might be right that nobody will convince you of something. And you might be right that Nobody is exploiting you. But, to quote DD:

I misread how he plays preflop? Super loose? I guess I missed that part.

I didn’t expect him to have 43dd, but I know he’s capable of having it. I’ve seen him make way more speculative/crazy flop peels. Flushed just seemed really unlikely since Kd is on board and I have Jd in my hand... so I’m losing to straight draws that made flushes, 2Xdd, or, well, any two suited cards because BDFD!