Quote:
Originally Posted by SetofJacks
If 77 is not even close then 88 and 99 are also folds.
That's a ridiculous comment. 99 is going to perform better than 77 against an UTG range, lumping them together as "medium pocket pairs" is disingenuous.
77:
Code:
PokerCruncher-Advanced-iPhone V.8.2.1
(Equity, Win, Tie)
Player 1: 55.3% 54.8% 1.02% {77+, A8s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+}
Player 2: 44.7% 44.2% 1.02% [7c7h]
Board: [? ? ? ? ?]
Deal To: River
Dead Cards: {}
Monte Carlo Simulation: 500000 trials
88:
Code:
PokerCruncher-Advanced-iPhone V.8.2.1
(Equity, Win, Tie)
Player 1: 52.8% 52.3% 1.03% {77+, A8s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+}
Player 2: 47.2% 46.7% 1.03% [8h8c]
Board: [? ? ? ? ?]
Deal To: River
Dead Cards: {}
Monte Carlo Simulation: 500000 trials
99:
Code:
PokerCruncher-Advanced-iPhone V.8.2.1
(Equity, Win, Tie)
Player 1: 49.6% 49.1% 1.04% {77+, A8s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+}
Player 2: 50.4% 49.9% 1.04% [9h9c]
Board: [? ? ? ? ?]
Deal To: River
Dead Cards: {}
Monte Carlo Simulation: 500000 trials
Even in this wide-ish example, 77 dominates nothing from the opener's range. 99, OTOH, dominates A8s, K9s, 88, 77. Even 88 is a defensible 3 bet in this scenario. But 77 is too much. Not really sure when I said it wasn't close, too, but the numbers clearly tell me that it's not good enough. And as to why 3 bet 88 but not 77, well, the line has to be drawn somewhere, or else we go for the full logical extreme and progress our statements from "if 88, then why not 77?" to "if 42o, then why not 32o?"