Regarding 4x vs 3x or whatever bets, I basically totally ignore that. It's an absolutely useless "standard" convention that some people used at one time for no good reason (that I can see) other that simply "others do it". That's obviously changed a lot over the years (typical tournament raise sizing and bet sizing is a great example of this). But again, for the most part, I completely ignore "standards". I'm about setting up poor IO or setting up plays that I'm going for (in this case a ~PSB shove on the flop), so if that means a 5x raise, whatever, that's what I do.

Yesterday I (the table super nit) 3bet a tight UTG open and I got called in *three* spots. If you think anyone cares whether a 3bet is to 2.5x or 3x or 4x or whatever (i.e. folding dominated hands), then you and I simply play in very different games (which may be the case). I raise to the amount that sets up the situation I want.

GcluelessNLnoobG

The standard opening in tournaments has fluctuated slightly, yes (and there are reasons for that, which pertain mostly to effective blind/ante stealing and barreling with medium and short stacks). But we're not talking about tournament opens or even cash opens we're talking about llsnl cash 3 bets. And in a game where standard opens are often 5 to 10 BB there is a big difference between a 2x and 5x 3 bet particularly when so many people think I'm terms of absolute dollars. People don't call a 75 dollar raise with the same range as a 20 dollar raise, notwithstanding your anecdote.

Someone raises to 10 you make it 20 they always call (or raise). Someone raises to 10 you make it 50 now they're calling 25% to 50%.

Now this may not be true for people raising only JJ+ AK but anyone on a wider range like any pocket pair, broadway, scs, Axs, if you minraise they call 100% but you 5x it they're dumping weaker Broadway and all SCs and AXs if stacks aren't deep and possibly low pocket pairs. You can't raise 22 to 10 then call 50 to set mine with a 60 dollar stack (pretty common where I play).

Some fish may be completely inelastic with respect to bet sizing but this is not true of the general poker population, particularly when stacks are shorter or villains have some understanding of IO and RIO.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

I agree that "unreasonable" bets at either end of the spectrum (i.e. a minraise 3bet vs a 10x 3bet over a "normal" raise) will typically get very different results. But anything that is remotely close to reasonable won't make a difference. In this case, the raise was to $21 with $7 of dead money in the pot; a 3x raise would be to $63, and if you add the dead money (which people often do) that would make it $70. I'm advocating $80. I just don't think there are that many hands calling $70 that ain't calling $80 as this sizing is clearly in the same ballpark (and yet one will get a lot more closer to my goal than the other).

GcluelessNLnoobG

really nice post gobblegeek. I think you expressed a good strategic point about having strong hands in position...

where we going to almost always have at least around 48-50% equity (maybe much more) if we see all 5 cards plus the fold equity we gain if we see either 0 cards or only 3. Of course, there are three problematic variables to consider
1) villain has a huge hand
2) villain 4bet bluffs
3) villain hits flop (equities change)

Taking this into account, given villain is wide (I think we should also consider applying such a strategy when villains are just not right), AND effective stack size

(sounds like we are trying to set up around a 1:1 stack to pot ratio for the shove on flop)

is this a tenable statistical strategy overall? I think a lot of us, myself included with around 80-150 BB stacks are not thrilled about getting dirty with AQ or jacks or even AK. there seems to be lots of thought behind supporting flatting. let's maybe decide this/have discussion.

I think this is a very common scenario given stack sizes and our hand strength. What's the optimal line.

As for hand itself, reads are way important. I think the price is WAY too good to consider folding though it doesn't feel great. I think making small errors is far preferable to making huge errors like folding the hand which could be WAY ahead.

I have long way to go. but once odds are odds, you have to play it like that. 5.5:1. ideally we play our hands with surefire intention so we are almost always in situations where the decision involves minimal uncertainty about what is CORRECT




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk