I may be misapplying a concept from Harrington's book "On the Cash Game, Vol I"

but it relates to balancing. Imo, I don't want to be calling every single raise when I have SCs but rather pick my moments according to table dynamics and my image along with which particular villain is the preflop raiser.

When I play in spots like this, its not just about flopping gin (which of course is nice), I will be aggressive with my position and try to take control of the pot if I have ANY piece of it. ANd so, since I play in this manner it works against me image wise to call too many raises pre. I can only steal and bully so much until certain villains notice and adjust.

So, for me, I've found that about 30% of the time is a good percentage to call raises with SCs when I'm in position.

Now, if I was ONLY interested in flopping gin then you would be right, calling 100% of the time when the conditions and odds are there would be acceptable. But in my case, I'm not just playing my SCs like I'm setmining. I will also aggressively try to take control of pots, steal, and win the hand through aggression. So I need to be conscious of how often I'm playing pots which directly impacts my image.

But to be honest, this is still an aspect of my game I am working on. I could be wrong and misapplying Harrington's concepts. I know we often talk about there is no need to balance in LLSNL but I have found that this sort of balancing has helped my overall game.

Another way I think about it is that if you start playing every single SCs and suited gapers, and every pocket pair, and every suited Ace and every suited King and A2-A5 and AT-AK, and JT-AK....

before you know it, you end up with a VPIP of 50%

so i'm conscious of that as well

+1

@Dgi when it comes to balance. Is it safe to say that bluffing(stealing) is not balance?

Some math lady I forgot her name, said its optimal to not balance vs players who can't hand read well.

So my thinking on her thinking is that stealing pots is not balancing because our hand does not matter. But position, ranges and perceived range do matter when stealing.

I can agree with this.

There is absolutely no need to "balance" vs players who can't hand read or are Level I players.... Absolutely.

But my thoughts are that if I'm calling a high percentage of raises and then being aggressive post flop trying to steal, there has got to be a frequency that will gain the notice of various villains at the table and that it will impact my image which then impacts my ability to steal...

of course this is villain dependant and I'm not trying to hide behind the "it depends" banner...

All I can speak to is my experience. I used to call a higher percentage of raises and I noticed that I seemed to be leaking lots of chips. If I call 5 or 6 $20 raises and whiff then that is $100 - $120 gone. So I started lowering the percentage of raises I did call and I notice that I hit a sweet spot around 30% (calling w/ SCs).

I guess I'd ask if anyone else has had a similar experience?

Is there anyone who used to ALWAYS call a raise with SCs but then over time started lowering the percentage of times they'd call a raise with SCs until they found their sweet spot?

I think calling 30% here (or less, even) is good for a TAG (seems like what you are describing yourself as?). Basically because this hand is not profitable to always play, but in situations like this where opponents think you're tight you may get a big payoff on something they don't think is in your range.

Flat.

Shoving in a 3-way pot overreps and generally gets them to fold unless you're beat.

Your evidence supports your theory too conveniently.

Your bet sizing on the turn and river on the side of raising turn was weakened. There is no reason you can't make it $250 instead of $180 on the turn and shove river.

Solid post, just highlighting your bias.

Not biased, just trying to be fair. Do you really think someone who bet $80 is calling a raise to $250? Bit aggressive don't you think?

Bit aggressive for what? Villain either will call off or not, I doubt villain will fire a 3rd barrel with air on that drryy board? We just raise and pray he has AK or AQ and stack-a-donk.

If we make it $180 or $250, how do you think that effects villains ranges?

Do you think if we make it $300 villains will always put us on a 6 and fold AK?

Looks to me like you have a bet-sizing leak and are losing $$$ in the long run.

not really,

I see this all the time on 2+2, we are too quick to say, "well, since the pot is X and V bet Y, he is obviously going to call Z" and that is just not always true.

There is some pyschology when trying to raise while simultaneously keeping a fish in the pot. Lots of fish don't think in terms of pot size, but rather the bet size. And from a pyschological standpoint, a $180 raise guarantee's that V calls while a $250 raise means V will fold a certain % of the time as we cross that "two hundred" dollar threshold...

basically, the same psychology behind why we price cars at $19,999 instead of $20,000....

this is further validated by the fact that V did in fact fold here to Hero's raise...

Basically, we differ on how we are going to extract value. You want to do it directly by raising turn while I want to do it indirectly by flatting and building the pot and keeping the other villain in.

I've made my case using math and logical deductions that I feel is fair.

You are invited to do the same to disprove me.

BTW, Even if I sub in $250 instead of $180 i'm still right...

Well, that is what happened...

The guy sitting on AK is faced with a lead out, then a shove.

He probably realizes that his hand cannot beat two hands, so he folds.

Strangely, if I were playing at my 'home turf' casino, I think I would have flatted/trapped the turn. But I wasn't in Connecticut; I was in Mississippi. I was running bad, and just couldn't stand the notion of getting sucked out on the river, so I just jammed to take down a nice pot.

But in retrospect, this is an easy flat. I'm rarely getting called by worse when I shove.