you're probably wrong about this. Yeah the rake is a lot but it's probably a lot softer than the casino games, isn't it?

I like the flop check, turn you can probably bet for value. Might even be a bet/call if we figure villain is not raising Ax (most aren't) and can decide to bluff if you've shown weakness (many can)

IMO, whether the rake is beatable will depend on whether there is a waiting list to get on the table.

IOW, if you bust someone, and nobody is there to fill the empty seat, then rake == not beatable.

However, if seats are constantly full because more folks are waiting to sit down and buy in full, and the house does not open more tables, then rake is bad but probably beatable, presuming you are +EV player in general and have an edge over the majority of opponents (not just better then the average player).

IMO... this is what the LA poker scene is like at the 2/3 and 3/5 level. Rakes are bad... but tables are generally full of morons. So, w/e.

~~~~~~~~~~~

This is kinda my point. Without further reads, I'm saying V is not going to bluff OTT or OTR.

Furthermore, without further reads, I think he leads OTT with Ax and TT here.

So H is still behind KK-QQ, but there's a good chance he's MUBS (especially since they didn't 4b pre) and will let it go. Also, there is now a bunch of [Tx, KQ, QJ, KJ, and ] that has caught up and will call a bet OTT.

OTOH, you are value owning yourself against Ax when this villain simply will not bet his AQ- post flop in this spot. FWIW, I think its a pretty small part of his range.

The problem is we don't really know what the $17 from UTG+1 means, and we don't know how V responds to a 3b pre.

So there!

If Villain opens 20% of hands UTG+1 which is: 66+,A4s+,K8s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,A9o+,KTo+,QTo+,JTo and never folds any of those hands if you bet you can breakeven by betting.

I don't really understand the point of (seemingly) randomly deciding we made a bad 3-bet, that we're beat, and that we should bluff.

Results:

You're right that the player pool was softer than at a typical casino. And to be honest, it was an extremely well run game. But I'm not sure that the skill gap makes up for the difference in rake.

If you have experience beating a game with terrible rake though, please pm me, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Ide be interested to hear why you think that B/F the flop is superior to B/F turn. I personally think that we have a much better chance of getting called by worse OTT than OTF. I also think that it's unlikely that we will get c/r bluffed by small PP's OTT.

Hands like this are why I maintain that JJ is the toughest pp to play. It's not premium IMO but it's above a middle pair. I think the 3! Is marginal. You are in position but you bloat the pot when an overcard will flop ab 75% of the time. If you are going to 3! I'd make it like $40-45.

On the flip side, you narrow villain's range and take initiative. I think you have to keep initiative and cbet this flop. This gets a lot of folds out of QQ and KK otf where they are less likely to believe you ott after you check. Secondly, they know that if they call the flop they will have to play OOP ott and otr to increasingly larger bets most of the time. This is where you being IP is advantageous. Plus a cbet really reps AK. Doubt AK ever checks this flop and IMHO tighter villains will fold to a 3 barrel if you keep the gas on. Not suggesting that play but the check just looks weak (which you are). Would AK ever check this flop IP? Doubtful?

I think you have 3 choices:
1- bet/fold flop
2- check and give up on the hand with the exception of some bluff catch calls otr if it checks through ott.
3- commit and barrel every street with a large bet otr.

I think option 1 is best then 2&3 comprising your balancing plays. AK/AQ are the only hands he can possibly call 3 streets with. TT will likely raise the turn and you fold, and that's only if they call the flop which would be tough to do IMO. Given this hand, I probably execute option 1 80%, option 3 10%, and option 2 10%.

I know I'm gonna get some hatred for this opinion but idc. I've had great success with it. Just my opinion.

Follow me on Twitter @DeepStackBMAC

I think it's not just about getting called by worse but getting folds by better. The flop cbet looks way more like AK/AQs than checking it back. This folds out QQ/KK and charges KQ to see the turn. Where if we check and bet the turn after a K or Q hits the river they def are calling a turn bet after you checked the A otf.

Follow me on Twitter @DeepStackBMAC

If you have JJ and someone has AQ an overcard will flop about 51% of the time. Some of that time you'll flop a jack. Since you put less than 50% of the money in pre-flop you could check/fold 100% of the Q/K/A high flops and be okay.

Most people are not bluffing most ace-high flops. If they are you can start to check AK on ace-high flops.

As far as this hand goes, I think the 3-bet is probably breakeven, or so, at best.

Obviously we can't bet the turn for value, and I have no idea why we'd choose to turn our showdown value hand into a bluff.

We are just looking at the math a little differently. We don't know what v has so I'm just giving an approx of an overcard flopping period, not odds under the assumption v holds two overcards. As I said originally, I agree the 3! Is marginal.

Numbers are wrong. Over card come 58%.

Just don't 3bet pre with JJ to EP 9bb open by a tight player.

You're literally seeing a 55bb pot flop with JJ, or going have to fold to 4bet.

3 betting is awful.

Just call.

Edit: or min 3bet is kinda cool, you kinda narrow his range pretty well

IME, a lot of players will still peel with QQ and KK, especially if they are in position. Some players will fold two one bet. I would also be focused more on getting a worse hand to call in this spot rather than a better one to fold since were obviously not folding Ax out without doing something crazy and as I mentioned before, people don't like folding QQ and KK to one bet.

Please explain where my numbers are wrong.. Maybe I'm miscalculating it but I'm looking at it like this:

4 Q
4 K
4 A

=12 overs

12/50 = .24
12/49 = .245
12.48 = .25

=.735 = 73.5%

At any rate, I ran some numbers on this one. If we put villain on a 3b calling range of TT/QQ/KK, AQs, AQo, AKs, AKo and KQs we are:

PF: 1.02:1 F
Flop w/ Ace: 2.99:1 A
Flop w/ King: 1.34:1 A
Flop w/ Queen: 1.30:1 A
Flop w/ no overs: 1.56:1 F

At any rate, this is an excellent hand for debate given all of the different opinions on the optimal play. I don't think a cbet is bad, I don't think OP played it bad either. Honestly I don't think checking behind ott and calling otr would be bad either.

Follow me on Twitter @DeepStackBMAC

I don't necessarily disagree. imho the reason this hand is a leveler is because of the 3b pre. We are only 1.02:1 PF against a calling range of TT/QQ/KK/AQs/AQo/AKs/AKo so idk if bloating this pot is the best idea. The overs hit too often and we will find ourselves in these positions wondering whether to pursue or give up. Add on having little chance to improve our hand and I think the 3b is probably a little less valuable than a flat. Expecially against a tight villain that's only calling w/ top 5% or better.

Follow me on Twitter @DeepStackBMAC

Can add more later if you need it. Short on time.

Formula

50 unseen cards
12 are A, K, Q
38 are safe cards

(38/50)×(37/49)×(36/48)=.43

43% chance you see zero scare cards

57% you see at least 1 over

I am sure you googled it by now though.

Grunch

I don't always 3-bet pre even OTB. Tight opener. Have to fold to 4-bet. At these eff stacks he may flat monsters too.

Once you do 3-bet and he checks, I think this is a super easy c-bet/fold. It is our only chance to rep AK and fold out KK/QQ/JJ. If he folds a worse pair, so be it, we probably aren't getting value from it on later streets anyway. Your hand is a bluff now, not a value hand.

After we check flop, we have to check turn. A delayed Cbet looks FOS here not to mention TT just improved.