I just realized all OP says is that villain "looks decent", meaning we do not know if he's a reg at all. So we're up against the average 3-betting range of the entire range of players that OP could perceive as decent over whatever interval he's observed, rather than the 3-betting range of somebody that's been observed enough to be confirmed a reg.
Basically that makes it a lot less easy to be sure that villain doesn't have T66xx if he three-bets. Or that he does't have made T if he calls.
Imo that should bias us towards trying to exploit getting laydowns rather than exploit by making extra folds. I think we can get those extra folds by raise/betting 6th/7th when the boards changes the distribution in our favor on 6th.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGspecial
How do you get a pot of 15.5 BB?
That's what the pot will be at the river, which really is the only time to save a bet in response to knowing the other guy has at least a T7. Barring some low frequent cases on sixth.
Quote:
Also, you don't really want to induce bluffs in spots you're not calling almost 100% of the time in a limit game.
It's if you're calling less than the indifference threshold for the bluff, and it's nothing unique to limit. Of course we don't have to call as often to screw over bluffs if we just call fifth.
Quote:
In a big pot, anything you can do to gain even a tiny amount of FE is a good thing.
I don't see any reason why 3-betting would give us more fold equity than calling and bluff-raising some turns or rivers. Our hand is pretty face up in both lines and raising fifth does very much give the impression that we're capable of making moves or pressing thin edges, which isn't really helpful for getting folds.
Last edited by Raxxmataxx; 03-13-2010 at 11:39 PM.