I posted earlier about it and will repeat it, if we think villain has a very tight opening range (OP assumed big pocket pairs), then we should be folding AK.

We only hit the flop 30% of the time, and of that 30% it kills pretty much any action from a range of bit pocket pairs, so we don't win anything to make up for the 70% of the time we miss.

This all is based off of OP's assumption of range, which is obviously very debatable.

I cant exactly peg him for AA or KK, i was thinking it was a strong possibility, in his range with this bet. I am not folding AK in this spot, i'll take my chances with the flop and take it from there. TT/JJ/QQ are also highly suspect to me. At best i am hoping to be in a race situation. Maybe that would be considered a silly play but i dont follow the math that far.

If he is making a play with AQ or AJ i am in a decent spot, he did not make to many post flop raises without a piece or a paired starting hand.

So i narrowed his range in this spot to TT-AA. so i have the potential to beat 3 of the 5 hands he could have. I have played this type of player quite a bit. Not extremely aggressive but will see a lot of flops and play a wide range of hands. Only seems to raise in MP with big hands and late position with a wider range of hands. I was not to scared of facing him post-flop. These are hand situations i don’t mind being in. I am more comfortable with my post-flop instincts. ::side note:: i wouldn’t say my post flop instincts failed me here, i just have problems folding huge hands.

I do agree this is boiled down to my pre-flop play. I think i will make it more of a habit to 3bet pre in this spot. I usually do 3bet in early position when i limp with AK to lighten up the field, i just did not attempt this time. I thought i was going to get in heads up.

I did not expect UTG+2 to call. That was a ignorant assumption. I cautiously played my AK because i had a good feeling the pot wouldn’t get out of control if i got heads up with MP villain.

maybe my logic is terrible, i sometimes find a lot of intangibles are quantified on 2+2 and i respect it, i just dont always follow it. I have played poker for a while, built up a bit of experience, I have found myself in many interesting situations. I am definitely not a very successful player, but i play 2-5 and 5-10 regularly in vegas where i live. The reason i add this is because i dont want any hostility over how i describe my play. I dont speak 2+2 very well, but trying to acclimate.

Well, debatable is putting it very nicely. It's a crap assumption.

why would you say this?

it turned out the MP had KK, 1 of the 5 hands i suspected, i dont understand why you say it was a "crap assumption". this is the hostility that people like to stir up on here.

I dont understand it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Your 'read' is nothing more than a somewhat educated guess. If you really, truly had that read, you would have folded pre. Instead, you probably just got scared and didn't 3bet.

ikestoys - thats an interesting principle, had i 3bet pre and he comes over the top, then i can state more definitvely a read of a top tier pocket pair?

SO is the fold or 3 bet a better play?

i base my assumptions of his hand from the play experience with him on this night. i had seen him around this poker room in the past but dont have to much memorable hand history with him.

I was very confident that "his" oversize bet in this position was a good indication he had a monster hand pre flop. So in that case i should just fold next time? taking a flop with him is never a good play?

With respect, whenwillitend, this is less about hostility than a lack of consistency between your opening post and subsequent comments. Please don't feel aggrieved, but just understand that some posters are doubting your initial assessment of the Villain's range, and for good reason. If you honestly assessed the Villain to have KK or AA, then flatting or 3-betting with AKo doesn't make sense in terms of your equity (and even if your not a math guy, you don't need a calculator to understand this contradiction). Subsequently, you admitted the Villain might be playing 10s+, which changes our view on your pre-flop decision. Against 10s+ (1010, JJ, QQ, KK, AA and AK) you have 40% equity (or likelihood of winning). If you add AJ and AQ to Villain's range, then your equity is nearly 55%.

As you can see, being as precise as possible with assessing ranges is crucial and is a very good starting point for analysing the hand. Now, if you assessed the Villain to have 10s+, then a 3-bet helps you narrow his range even further. You can often (but not always) assume that a Villain (depending on the type of player he is) will 4-bet you with QQ, KK and sometimes JJ, in which case, you can fold AKo given your stack size (with 100 BB it's more difficult to fold). If he flats your 3-bet, then he may have AQ or AJ or some other hand such as mid-pockets or suited-connectors or possibly AA and JJ. But at least with a 3-bet, you can play a Axx or Kxx board a little more confidently, having a better idea, in most cases, what hands you're up against.

since no one interested in my hand.. i'll just post the result.. i tank called due to so many semi-bluffing hands on that board.
and he flips 89 offsuit..

lesson learned, significant overbet from unknown means huge made hand..

Nice pot control.

lol

This is a much more positive post. So the moral of the story is 3 bet to narrow this particular players range. This type of player would most definitly 4 bet with KK or AA but probably would flat with TT/JJ/QQ. So that would have been a better way to assess.

I would have gotten UTG +2 out of the hand as well just in case this player did flat with KK.

I will not hesitate to do so next time.

Go forth and crush. 3betting AK can be your friend.

I hate this reasoning..It's essentially a find out where you are at reasoning...

3bet because they'll call you with worse, particularily AQ/AJ or other Ax, Kx hands. Or 3bet because you think they'll call pre a lot and fold post a lot. If you don't think they will, don't 3bet.

There is nothing wrong with calling and letting the first limper in. I don't know why getting a weak player out of the pot when you have a strong starting had is such a big concern for you.

What's wrong with 3-betting to help narrow Villain's range, especially when the Villain is not likely to level and 4-bet light? Your word 'hate' makes me suspicious here and suggests you're being contrary and not tailoring your analysis to the stakes and general skill-set of players involved in this hand. With all the players 200BB deep, not 3-betting AKo OOP seems foolhardy and likely to generate all sorts of awkward spots post-flop. My only concession here is that Hero's read is strong on Villain (KK+), in which case a 3-bet is wasted money, because Hero is always going to fold. But, if you look at the thread from start to finish, it's pretty clear that the Hero was not entirely clear about the Villain's range. What in your view would be an ideal flop for the Hero in this situation when flatting pre-flop and how would he proceed on such a flop OOP? I'm curious.

It goes without saying that any raise is going to generate some range information based on villain, table climate, and players position, tilt, whatever+ going on.

Whether that's your main reason for raising, or thinning the field, or getting value, it doesn't matter how we process what we are doing.

Sometimes in some situations I want some information first. Sometimes I'm raising for value and know where I'm at and don't really need information.

There's really nothing wrong with keeping this game simple and whatever works best for you is the right way. Enjoy the moment.

3beting AK does nothing to avoid awkward spots post flop 200bb deep, unless they fold. I'm not sure why we want to narrow his range. Unless you by narrow you mean fold out 87s type hands and keep in Ax and Kx hands. This isn't what you'll accomplish against a solid player.

I think the result most people really feel they want with the 3bet here is a fold. If they call what more do we know? Do we know anymore about his 3bet calling range than we know about his opening range? Do we know how he's going to respond to cbets? If we do narrow it to a strong hand range, why do we want to play against a range that is stronger than AK? If we really are making the 3bet to get folds, why not do it with 97s, A3s, or something like that?

People don't put you in that many spots. I'm more than happy to play post flop with a strong hand, even if it is oop. It also allows the other guy to over call with a weaker range.

I also get the impression that a lot of the advice in this thread on how people would play AK is with the motivation to win the pot the most often, rather than thinking about how to win the most money. It seems people want to 3bet it take it down now, or get heads up so that the other guy can't call and have a chance at winning the pot.

I can understand your dislike for this 3-bet mentality, since, really it's a form of playing scared with a very strong hand (AKo) that has much post-flop value. However, the fact of the matter is that 3-betting does generate more information, in nearly all cases, even if you're playing a maniac.

Let's assume you're playing at a table with a Level 1-2 mentality, in which there is very little bluffing taking place pre-flop (such as the table in question in this analysis). If Villain has KK, on most occasions he will 4-bet, right? And with what else will he 4-bet? AA, probably. QQ often. JJ, sometimes. AK, occasionally. It's highly unlikely any other combos are in his 4-bet range. So, already, we have some decent information, against those hands which either have us dominated or flipping at best, and therefore reduce the chances of playing against a range that is stronger than AK.

I'll admit the issue of the 3-bet calling range is tricky, especially against a loose recreational player, but at least, it does make it easier to play an Axx or Kxx board, by taking the dominating hands out of the equation (AA/KK). I know this sounds fundamental and therefore a little dull, but is still very relevant.

Also, understand that a loose recreational player will flat a 3-bet with AJ or AQ quite often, sometimes even with random Ax, KQ, KJ, 22-10, which provides Hero with a super +EV situation. If Hero thinks about his 3-betting frequency, and also 3-bet lights with A3 or 97 in the right spot at the right time, like you suggest, then the likelihood of getting into these +EV situations is even greater. But, then, of course, Hero also has to be wary of Level 3+ situations, where Regs will start flatting him with AA, KK or 4-betting light.

I guess we value 'information' differently. I don't feel that the info we gain preflop from a 3bet is that much more valuable than all the info available postflop (cbets, sizing, timing, etc).

I also don't feel eliminating AA/KK from their range by 3betting has much value. If we assume that they 4bet AA/KK only and always, we lose our 3 bet 100% of the time they have it. But even if we lose 2x as much postflop when we hit with AK vs there AA/KK on average, that doesn't happen anywhere near 50% of the time because of their blockers.

As for the wide range you gave a recreational player for calling a 3bet...well yea, if they are calling that wide then I 3bet for sure. But for value, not for information or to eliminate AA/KK from their range.

To re-iterate, my post was based on the general feeling that I got for peoples reasons for 3betting, which largely did not include a calling range that is good for AK, but rather to just win the pot imo.

I accept the validity of this approach against a Villain who you sense may have you dominated pre-flop (remember OP about UTG bet-sizing of Villain). However, you do need some post-flop skill to lose only 2x rather a large portion of your stack, when playing 200BB deep. If the board came, say, K37, and your AK is against KK, then how are you going to lose just 2x, especially if turn is a 2 brick. I mean, you're calling at least two, most likely three, streets of betting here. Do you just call this a cooler and move on (because AK into KK doesn't happen often)? Do you get a bet-sizing, post-flop read and make a miracle fold on the turn? This is why I still have trouble with your line of thinking, even though I definitely think it's valid.

If you're not 3betting AK, are you never 3b bluffing?

I will never understand live players refusals to use tacits that PRINT MONEY against Level 0/1 players.

Defining the hand (gathering info) does have value, particularly when done for another, independent reason. The overall disdain for "gathering info" here is confusing for all the level 2-3 players that are new to this Forum.

ITT the independent reason for 3betting is that Hero (oop) definitely sometimes gets called by worse, even though he thinks the initial raiser is tight. Almost all the vets here in fact would 3bet A-K a lot more in early position than if they had the best position; they do it for a variety of reasons. Partly in order to define the hand preflop in a way to cope with information assymetry (that their IP opponent has in his favor) on each subsequent betting round.

= betting for information.

not an expert but what I would do is 3b pre to $150 think this would make the 77's fold and put you on heads up then cbet flop.

If we three bet to 80-90 bbs and fold to a 3bet, is going to be hard to lose more than 160-180 bbs on average the times we are dominated and hit with on 200 bbs to start.

For the person talking about peoples disdain for information bets: it's not a disdain for information. It's just that people seem to forget you can gets lots of information in other forms. They seem to only put value on the 'info' they receive by raising, and ignore the info you can get from bet sizing, timing, simoly if they chech or bet, etc. And becuase I thin raising for information typically isn't the most +EV line, it means that info has to be way more valuable I just don't think it is.

I am comfortable playing post flop, and live I think I'll make the correct decision most the time in difficult spots. So, if you are not, maybe other lines designed to lose you less could be more +EV for you.

I'll also re-iterate, if you think they are calling wide, then I definitely 3bet.

Also, some one asked if I never three bet bluff if I don't 3bet here. Well for one, balance doesn't matter cause almost no one will 4bet you light because they saw you flat a big hand. And second, this particular spot is a situation where my air range is probably close to 0%.