I can prove easily using simple pot odds vs card equity to prove that calling flop and folding turn when missed is -ev.

Card equity : 9*2+1 = 19%
Pot odds: 40/(60+40) = 40%

Assuming that villain will not put any more money in if the third flush card hits or Hero is going to fold turn when missed, the flop call is obviously -ev.

Quite a joke if you think villain isn't putting more money into this hand if villain has QQ+/sets.

Wow... so at Parx, 1/2NL, the players are so good that they're 3B preflop and then b/f the flop?

Glad I don't play there...

Do they have unicorns there for hay rides?

I do not wish to get into any heated argument or whatever with you.

I think you have a flawed thinking process here. You are thinking of $300 as absolute money. But you should really be thinking about the $300 as a relative amount based on pot size.

After calling the huge preflop 3 bet, your SPR is just a meagre 5 (thereabout). That means that if villain bets 2/3 pot at each street, you will be all in by turn easily. That is no longer deep stacked poker.

A drawing hand plays badly with a low SPR. It has nothing to do with that "huge" stack you are thinking of... that $300....

Huge preflop 3 bet size? It's 18 more, we're getting 2.5 to 1 with AQs IP. If you fold AQs here (and people know it), you should get 3 bet A TON more often since your 3bet call range is like TT+/AK.

Glad that we are starting to discuss about actual theories and concept.

There is actually a book on "Professional NLHE" co authored by Ed Miller that explain this very clearly.

Against a huge 3 bet at 1/2NL stakes, AQ is normally an underdog preflop. As such, when you call, AQs should be treat as a drawing hand.

Then you calculate the SPR.... it is only ~5 (270/60) thereabout. This is an SPR where you will frequently get into plays which are -ev.

The 3 bet is huge because it effectively diminished your SPR. I may not be playing 1/2 NL now. But in my 5/10 games, 3 bets/ 4 bets are still predominantly AA-KK or AK unless the villain is a known regular who is competent enough to know what he is doing.

lololololol.

Okay. You're just a gigantic troll. Ignoring you now. You have nothing useful to say (at least not to me). I hope other people take my advise and start blocking you.

And this is why I hardly post any strat anymore.

The -EV part is the preflop call. Shoving 260 into the 100 pot is + EV here (what i'd do or just flat). It's gonna make hands like AK fold out (has good equity vs us) QQ is going to be put in a tough spot. If V puts us on a range of sets + FD overs then the call is -EV for them.

You don't want to be in a spot where you're just flipping with villain. Shoving nuts up your range a bit making V's call a bad one if he does. You collect the dead money ($100) more than any other raise and are almost flipping if he calls anyway.

So...villain checks to us on the turn. What now? I'd like to bet here because i think it wins us the pot a lot of the time but stack sizes are awkward, so I'd probably check back.

Wow. Are $1/$2 players really that passive that we're throwing away AQ suited on the button to a re-raise? Thought the games were a little looser than that at $1/$2.

I figured a player in his 20's that is 3-betting a button raise has a much wider range than JJ-AA, hence fold equity.

If we think he only 3bets JJ-AA, are we calling the 3bet with the intention of only winning the pot when we flop an ace, a flush, or a straight? If so, we probably need to fold to the 3bet.

even if he does have a wider 3b range here, i still don't see why raising his lead otf is any good. if he has air and is firing a cbet, we will have an opportunity on a later street to use our positional advantage and aggression. if he has a made hand, i'd say we have zero fe.

and i agree, i personally would have folded to his 3b and that was my first suggestion. you just can't assume anyone is 3b light in these games unless proven otherwise.

games can generally be really loose. doesn't make them aggressive where opponents are 3b your btn raise light bc they assume you have a wide opening range from lp. if that is is the case, then table change imo

So we agree that we need to show aggression at some point in the hand, given that even if his range is as tight as {JJ+,AK}, AK makes up 12 of the 27 combos in said range (44%) My question is: why not do it on the flop when you have more equity, can leverage your positional advantage with a small raise by threatening two more streets for villain OOP in a now incredibly bloated pot, and can potentially buy yourself a cheap river card. If he's folding 44% of the time a raise to 100 is definitely +EV, though I admit that doesn't necessarily mean it's more +EV than calling; that depends on his frequency of calling the flop raise compared to shoving over, which we don't really know.

ETA: using that 44% figure (essentially a worst case scenario, unless he doesn't c-bet in this obvious spot) we can also estimate the EV of a shove, as another poster suggested. When called, the EV would be:
EVcalled = .40(365) - .6(265) = -$10
So if he calls 56% of the time:
EVshove = .44(100) - .56(10) = $38.40, which is hugely +EV

I don't know what that proves other than that the bar is set pretty high, so calling would have to be printing money for it to beat the various raising options. It's hard to quantify what our implied odds are though.

I like the smaller raise more because I don't think the FE changes very much; he'll still usually fold whiffed overs and call with JJ+ and maybe AJ if he 3bets that. If he shoves over the small raise we only lose $10 by calling, and obviously getting a fold or a call and turn check are both favorable outcomes for us compared to us flatting.