This is a close call bw c/f and shoving. I really don't understand all the ILCD hate.

Shoving is a pretty big error IMO.

They will snap with AT and kJ and your equity is v bad.

Betting 20 on the flop allows you to get a super cheap card and sets up a turn bluff shove.

Nice analysis by PA, learned something today. My tiny quibbles include:

1. Thread is mis-titled. A squeeze implies that we are looking for folds because we have less than a premium hand. In my mind, AKo is a value bet all day against the typical range I would expect.

2. I think there is more FE than PA proposed. I think either won of them folds over 1/2 of their calling range on the flop, which makes the shove +EV. Especially at 1/2, often you are playing someone who's whole night ends if he calls and loses. He'll happily play with 30BB. AT without a draw folds. While not thinking in ranges precisely, they are thinking QQ+, AK which smashes this board.

3. In some senses, the decision falls back to an old TJ Cloutier philosophy that if it is close, he would go with his gut. He figured that if he was making a mistake, it was a small one. Since playing aggressive creates FE, don't underestimate it.

0 reads i am pretty sure 3betting is always the best play here. There are very few reads youll have which will make this a call pre.

I didn't recommend calling because I think we're beat. It's because if we get called we are OOP with the lead and an awkward SPR. If we pick up the pot or get it HU often, that would be different, but we are definitely not looking for 2 calls when we raise no matter how far ahead we are.

Scarddraw..
Why do you suggest shoving 75bb here with sets.. We are getting called by FD SD for sure and over pairs.. Doesn't donk leading about 15 bb at these stakes induce more action three ways??

Why I say this is we can triple up rather than best case get one caller and worst case get two folds with excellent equity

You want to bet $30 into a $150 pot? Please see my COTM on slowplaying :-)

But basically, given the fact that shoving is only a PSB, and that the villains seem to have made crazy preflop calls, and this is a pretty wet board, they are probably calling a shove with most of the hands they are calling any bet with.

If you bet $30 with a set and get 2 callers, then there are a lot of cards on the turn that put you in a bad spot. If the villain has a made hand and a draw completes, he might then fold the turn where he would have called the flop shove.

If he has a draw and it competes, we are paying him off. He probably would call the flop shove with something like the NFD anyway, but in this case you are getting the money in as a favorite and not an underdog.

You are assuming we are always up against a value range. In many instances, AK flops the best hand. This is my justification for 3betting pre. However, there are certain board textures, as well as hero's perceived image as well as villains' tendencies where I believe firing a flop is a mistake, but that doesn't make 3betting pre a mistake

I started to type a response, but I think I changed my position on this mid post...

I'm not saying don't 3bet AK. Most of the time I would. I'm just saying in this situation, if I was expecting 2 callers, I would not because of the awkward situation it creates OTF.

AK does not usually flop the best hand against 2 callers, and the kind of boards where it does are often the ones where inferior hands can't call.

I guess I'm saying that the purpose of 3betting a hand like AK is not so much to get more money in when you are ahead, but to pick up the pot preflop or on the flop. Preflop, you really aren't that far ahead - so the EV you gain preflop can be wiped out if you create a situation where you will make a mistake later.

So to me, the question is really what % of flops will give you fold equity when you don't hit, and what % of flops will let your opponents call off when you do hit.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure...

Against a CO raise and a BTN call, 3-betting AK for value is correct almost always.

I'm not disagreeing, but can you explain why you say that?

We have a value hand that is way ahead of their CO raise and BTN calling range, and likely way ahead of their 3 bet calling range.

I would counter that by saying stacks matter a lot here since we are OOP.

I stand by my analysis that shoving or x/f OTF is too close to call in a $1/2 vacuum.

However, if I was coaching a $1/2 player I would probably tell them to x/f.

I don't play $1/2 anymore, but $1/2 is an amazing game. It doesn't suffer from any of the sustainability issues that micro and small stake online poker does.

Winning 5bb/100 on a US facing site like Carbon or Lock is currently not easy, as measured by the fact that such a small percent of players can currently achieve that win-rate over a meaningful sample (200k+). Most micro and small stakes players are paying well more in rake than they are winning, if they are even winning.

This problem manly exists because online poker doesn't have what live $1/2 does:

• Horrible fish, who do not fold, and give stack off way to often and light.

Most of the Lock/Carbon micro and small stakes tables are beatable, but you just don't see as many fish donators on those tables as you do in $1/2 live.

My point is just that to beat $1/2 live, you really just need to always have value hands.

Play $1/2 live for 1,000 hours with a strong range, never bluffing, never hero-calling, and you will have enough money to move up to $2/5. Period.

I don't play $1/2, but when I did, I would sit there all day and watch the old-reg-nits clean up. And they still do. I still see them playing $1/2, and making more money at those tables than many at $2/5. They just don't want to play $2/5. They are nits with no gamble. But that is fine for live $1/2.

At $1/2 live, old-reg-nits take the money f do.

If I was coaching a $1/2 player I would probably tell them:

"Just x/f here. Just keep showing up with the best hand at live $1/2 and you will win. You want to beat $1/2 and move up to $2/5? Easy, just keep showing down the best hand. Don't bluff or hero-call.

Look it's $1/2 live. Just x/f. If you shove, sometimes they call with ATo. Sometimes they call with 77. Live $1/2 is that beatable. To beat $1/2 just keep showing up with the best hand."

We are only 100bb deep, so stack sizes are good for a value 3-bet with AK because we will not have any tough decisions post flop. If we flop TPTK, we can stack off profitably almost always. Being OOP doesn't matter with 100bb or shorter stacks.

It is different when we are 300bb+ deep because certain Villains might put us in a tough spot. If we 3-bet AK to 25bb, and flop comes AJ9 with a flush draw, we might not want to stack off for 300bbs. Unfortunately, we can't control the pot size when we are OOP, so a good Villain can put us in a very tough spot even when we flop TPTK.

Basically 100bb and shorter stacks makes it a slam-dunk OOP 3-bet. 300bb and deeper stacks makes us prefer to flat OOP versus tough Villains who will abuse position against us to force us into very tough spots.

Hmm... This is interesting because I would argue the opposite.

If we had 300bb here I would be all in favor of a raise. Now our Cbet is actually effective, and when we make a hand we can play it appropriately. Nobody at 1/2 is going to play back at us just because we are in a vulnerable position.

You didn't mention this, but if we had 50bb I would say 3bet shove pre for value.

It's the fact that we have specifically 2 opponents and 100BB that makes me question the 3bet.

5CardDrew,

You are way too obsessed with c-bet respect and SPR nonsense. This is a live 1/2 NL game. Who cares if you end up with awkward stack sizes for a c-bet bluff? We only care about getting value.

These guys are 1/2 NL idiots who hate to fold. I would just concentrate on getting thick VALUE now because they will call a big 3-bet with worse hands.

I think you should burn your copy of Professional No Limit Hold Em and forget everything you "learned" about SPR. Against 1/2 NL idiots, we just need to dumb it down and get maximum value at every opportunity.

Getting maximum value here means that we should 3-bet AK, especially because stacks are only 100bb.

Personally, if I expected to get two calls with a $50 3-bet, I would 3-bet bigger to $65 preflop, so I get even more preflop value out of the two Villains. I think the reason that Hero only 3-bet to $50 is that Hero didn't expect to get 2 calls.

I respect your opinion, but this seems to be getting a little personal, so I'm going to drop it.

Princess Azula is very wise, a trait that I have only seen in a handful of regulars in this forum.

Bravo.

Despite the post count, PA is no newbie

PA's post in the "top 5 tips" thread might be the best post I have ever seen.

I'm not sure where it is that you don't play 1/2 anymore, but I've never seen a game where the old nits are the big winners.

Furthermore, it's not 2006 anymore...depending on the table texture, it can sometimes take more than clicking buttons with value hands in order to win big while playing live 1/2.

PA is spot on. Are they the biggest winners? Probably not, but they're certainly big winners relative to the rest of the player pool.

I took a stroll to find the other 2 candidates for "best post I've ever seen" and look what I found!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...lings-1078027/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17.../#post33010629

I wish I could be friends with PA in real life. And yes, I know that's a male.

Anyway, back on topic, using stove and realizing how much equity I had even against a reasonable tight 3b calling range was enlightening.

I don't play $1/2 anymore b/c I moved up a while ago. At the casino I play at, the $1/2 players who are winning the most and who have been winning the longest, are the old-men-nit-grinders.

I respect them.

I think the poker community is currently nuts and wrong. Nit has become such a bad word. I understand why though. A lot of live poker is image. And a lot of image is talk. There are many players who talk about themselves like they are so loose/bluffy and aggressive. But as I watch them play, I see that they are tight, tight, super tight - very nitty always showing up with the nuts.

I get it. They are talking themselves up as gamblers. But they not.

Ivey said poker is about being tight, but having everyone think you are not.

So, anyway the poker world is so wrong about the best way to play. Everyone thinks nits suck. But nits are winning in the games.

Last week I was playing in a game where this rich young rec player was berating this nit for playing so few hands. I didn't get involved in the argument, but I wanted to say:

"Look dumbass, that guy has been coming year for years. And by the way, he isn't rich. So how can he afford to dumb $500 to you and keep reloading? The answer: he is buying in with his previous winnings. He's actually winning in the game. Unlike you. You come here once every two weeks on Friday, and spew off $1500 before leaving. You are clueless. But thanks for the $$ and thanks for sucking."

So the point is this. Here is this young guy who only has money b/c his rich mom gives him money. He thinks the best poker player is the one who plays the most hands. He plays 70/30/5 poker. Can't win with those stats. He is a huge loser in the game. But he just doesn't get it. It's not about being cool and playing every hand. It's only about winning money. That's it.

So trust me. Everyone thinks the best players aren't nits. Guess what. Outside of the famous nosebleeders and sickos, most winners play tighter than 2+2 thinks.

But wait wait you say. Online is all aggression and being creative. Go play $2/4 online. You will see that these people fold to 3bets 50% of the time. That's not what that rich kid would think. He thinks, I raise, I defend. He's wrong. Look how often TP is checked OTF in the mid-stakes online games. Someone raises OTB. They get called only by BB. They flop TP. It goes x/x.

That **** happens a lot online. But almost everyone thinks the opposite. Almost everyone is wrong about when to bet and why to bet.

Anyway, about the HH. I do like the 3bet. I think shove/fold is too close to call. As an over-all live $1/2 game play. x/f in that spot is what I would advise someone who was struggling to beat that game.

This is what I thought, too. With a big pair you risk KQ getting a free card but QQ, KJ, AJ AT might ship "putting you on AK

+1

When I reflect on my biggest losses they almost always stem from me playing too loose.