I'd say the idea here, for this hand, isn't really advocating 3 betting any 2 cards pre. What I do think is that if this V is a relatively wide opener (wider than QQ+ and AK when V opens) and; we haven't been marked as a light 3 bettor yet - 3 betting KQo or KQs is a great play, especially if we're reasonably certain Villain will 4 bet with better, and flat with worse.

If V 4 bets, easy fold. If V flats, and we both miss (which happens most often), we win some additional $$ with a C-bet.

Admittedly 3 betting ATC would be pretty reckless, but KQ is a decent hand pre against a relatively wide opener, so we probably have some equity pre. Combine that with initiative, and some hand reading and post flop play skills, and I think we can carve out an edge that others may not be able to or even see the possibilities of.

But SABR's point that we don't need KQ to do this is exactly right though.

If we both miss, V will fold to our bet. We might as well have had 75s once this happens. Having had the better hand is almost totally worthless if the plan is to win without showdown.

I can see that point. I don't necessarily look at my entire plan for a hand as winning without showdown; more as adding initiative (when appropriate) to our skill set moving to the flop. Against a Villain who opens reasonably wide, like say Q10+, and we have what in that case I'd consider a premium hand with KQ, I'd prefer a 3 bet to a flat to set the tone for when we go to the flop. Not so much "I'm gonna muscle you off every hand", but more in an effort to turn the tables and put the Villain into a spot where they now have to play fit or fold against us, not us fit or fold against them.

By "when appropriate" I mean against Villains who open a bit wide - not against OMC who folds for 3 hours and suddenly opens.

I think call or 3bet pre is fine and folding is worst. Check/call flop is fine, but I'd lead the turn. River is a check/fold. It just doesn't sound like this is the type of game to go for a crazy check/raise on the river.

ANL you are really misapplying this reciprocality concept.

For sake of argument, lets assume we have the same post flop skills as our opponents in this exact spot.

Just because you think everyone is flatting KQ is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to our decision. We would actually be losing "real dollars" in my made up scenario if we 3 bet because flatting, IMO, is superior.

If you want to justify a play based on why you think it's MORE OPTIMAL, that's fine. I disagree with a lot of your reasoning for three betting, but that's neither here nor there.

My point is, the only thing we are concerned with is making the most +EV play. Bringing in the "no money moves" idea here has absolutely NOTHING to do with our decision in any way.

andees10, I'm genuinely curious, because I'm in the 3 betting camp. If the no money moves idea isn't sound for this hand, is there an example where it might be more relevant? Or is it the idea itself you disagree with? Thanks.

If that is your true belief, then thats fine. Its wrong IMO, but thats why we have opinions. And why poker is a great game.

Reciprocality does play a role here and if you dont see it, well you just dont see it. If I raise with KQ or AQ or AJ and someone 3 bets from the blinds, it is VERY difficult for me to play him now. But, if he flats and just play s a check call game with me he will never win the hand often without actually making the best hand. This is such an elementary argument that I really cannot believe so many are fighting for flatting.

If you guys who are in the flat camp feel that you can play a hand ANY HAND better by flatting OOP, and playing the check call game where you have NO idea where you stand in the hand, check and calling most of the way and check folding when you miss, then well, i guess that is the way you should play it.

To me, we have a very nice hand that will give us plenty of back up equity when needed, as well as win the hand when each player misses OR doesnt flop a hand big enough to call the whole stack with. By taking control with initiative, you literally will always garner a higher EV than if you play a check call game. And if you flat pre, check call is about the only game you have really.

This is my opinion, I know myself that I can generate far more profit by taking control with this hand, controlling the betting and well as betsizing, and knowing far better where I stand in the hand. To me, for many of you to say that you can flat and play the hand to a higher profit without any of the control that i speak of above, well ok then, thats your opinion.

Its funny to me that so many get angry over these things. They are opinions and why we have a forum.

Focus on the most +EV decision and you'll be fine.

The beauty of such approach is that you will never sit in a table where everyone is making the most +EV decision, so when you do make the best decision, you are no longer in a pool of trading money.

Why do you keep making these statements? Like you said, we all have "opinions," and without actually showing any sort of proof, how can you say that opinions are wrong.

You're a coach, and I really expected a higher standard.

That's right. To you it's a guess, and it might as well be a magic show.

God, no! Read Ed Miller's book Playing the Player, or you can just keep on guessing.

Being the aggressor isn't ALWAYS the most EV approach. If you need a math breakdown, just ask me, I'll be more than happy to show you.

I might charge you though.

Yes, it is YOUR opinion! Who are you to say that others are wrong and you are right? Especially when it is pretty obvious that you can't come up with anything more than "this is what I think..."



Head exploded!

Angry? LOL, TBH, I am jealous that you can actually make money selling these kind of gibberish to people.

For the same reasons that i would 3 bet the hand when after a wide opener opens. Taking control and gaining initiative is usually better. Not always but usually.

Described villain is a near top-tier opponent @ 1/2. I'm looking for a better spot to 3-bet.

Oh my gosh Richard Parker, what is your goal in this thread?

To be after the truth, same goal of mine for every thread.

OK Richard, you have been personal just about enough here. I have 170 great reviews on my coaching thread. NO BAD REVIEWS. I have 144 students who come back to me because regularly because they get results. My protege student that i taught from ground up won a WSOP bracelet last year.

My credentials speak for themselves. So for you to blurt out rediculous statements about how I am unqualified or anything of the sort, says something about you.

Im done replying to you and going back to addressing APD questions/concerns.

So what are your evidences that it's better to be taking control in this spot?

I am not trying to take it personal, but you have opened at least two of your posts with absolute statements that the other person is WRONG.

So I have asked you to explicitly explain why it is wrong.

You are a coach! And yet you continue to dodge the question...

I am disappointed to say the least.

I believe that you, I, ANL and everyone here agrees on this, but the confusing foray into the land of "Reciprocal Argument" made this more complicated than it needed to be.

Sent from my BNTV400 using 2+2 Forums

[QUOTE=CallMeVernon;42178767]But SABR's point that we don't need KQ to do this is exactly right though.






I disagree. KQss will give us plenty of back up equity which will come in handy. 3 betting T5o would be no good. We would be relying 100% on fold equity which is not profitable. We need a mixture of equity, fold equity and initiative. Thats a winning combo.

It is very important that we utilize information beyond just our own hand, and whether KQs actually has more equity than T5o in certain situations needs proof, not just an eyeball test that KQs > T5o.

T5o has little equity in most scenarios and hence very little RIO, whereas because we think KQs has a lot of absolute equity, it carries an enormous RIO for most players, especially OOP.

To say that we rather 3bet with bottom of our value range than bottom of bluff range is really no different than saying KQs is a better hand than T5o.

Yes, we get that.

Quite a bit of the ART forms of poker cannot be put on paper mathematically. How do I explain mathematically how I can 3 bet in position AJ vs a wide opener and proceed to outplay him postflop? But its very easy to do. math? Its irrelevent. So for you to ask for math on a situation that is more ART than math, cant be answered.

Again, APD asked how best to play the hand. And to me, it is optimal to 3 bet and take control rather than flat and play the hand very softly. 3 betting OOP takes skill postflop for sure, but optimal is optimal so if a player is up to it postflop, then the 3 bet is optimal.

Above pretty much sums up what I think of you. I am done with topic relating to you.

Forum fight

Since many players are in the flat camp, i would be interested to know how
anyone would assume that they could make a decent profit on the hand when flatting....



Has us check folding when missing most likely.

Winning very little if we hit a pair since this hand does not cooler hands, being the trouble hand that it is.

Not having a clue where we stand if we hit Qxx and villain keeps betting 60% pot on each street.




I honestly do not see the profit in this UNLESS the topic of creative play postflop by hero is brought in. And so far there has been no mention of that. Someone please enlighten me on that if you will.

The no money moves idea should never be used to justify a play. I do not disagree with the idea because the idea is fact. I'll give you a really simple example. Lets say we open AQ otb and get called in the BB. The Board runs out QT7r 6 2. We bet flop, turn, and river for value. Maybe 70% of the player pool only gets 2 streets of value. We show a "real profit" on the river here because we are taking advantage of a situation that others are not. However, lets just say for argument that everyone DOES bet the river, should we? ABSOLUTELY. What the other players are doing in this spot has pretty much nothing to do with our decision.

ANLs argument is basically "A fish does X in this spot so we must do Y because then money will move". And again ill say it's irrelevant what a fish does. Were focusing on maximizing EV.

If most fish muck 72o UTG does that mean we should open? Obviously not

Fist off, I don't think you really read my post. I said if you want to justify a play based on why you think it's MORE OPTIMAL, that's fine. My point was reciprocality has nothing to do with your decision. You clearly think 3 betting is better. Ok, fine. Lets just say we live in a world where most fish 3 bet in KQ in this spot. Does that change your decision? No.

Do you see why reciprocality can't be used as a legitimate justification for your play?

That's all i'm trying to say

Personally because I don't expect anyone to fold to my 3bet, I think we find ourselves in the same exact boat of not knowing where we stand with the exception of AA/KK because I expect them to 4bet those. So take two hands out of his range and we are up against the same range that he raised with. We have initiative now, but as I said before trying to push through in this game is suicide.