Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth
Hi bicyclekick:
I don't agree with this. Forgetting the specific hand, the argument to 3-bet so the big blind can't call for one more bet makes sense when the pot is short-handed and/or you don't have a hand that plays well multiway. But in this case, and now remembering the OP's hand is king-jack suited, which plays well multiway, I don't think you want to knock people out.
Hi mason, thx for participating in this discussion.
Unfortunately I kinda differ because I don’t understand .
Taking the sklsnsky theorem of poker .
We gain (make money) when players make mistake and we «*lose*» when the opponents do not make mistake , correct ?
By not 3betting KJs we let cheaply the BB and even the SB enter the pot .
Just calling , BB makes no mistake by calling only 1 bet pf with a large range of hands , so we’re not making real money imo .
I mean the reason we enter the pot with a raise pf, is exactly not to let BB in cheaply and force him to call raises with hands he shouldn’t !
Seem to me not 3betting is the same here , we 3bet hoping BB (SB and BU as well) makes a clear mistake by calling with a lot of hands they shouldn’t when we3 bet , making money in this situation .
I feel not 3 betting allows BB to play correctly with too many hands .
I think the fact that our hands is suited is not a reason to prevent us to 3betting when we have a valuable 3bet to make .
Instead I feel being suited is only a plus because we don’t care the pot is multiway or not !
Not 3 betting hands that should be 3 bet just to add more players in the pot ( and so they make much smaller mistake pf) is wrong with a hand this strong , even more so when we have almost the best position in the field .
I guess it comes to which strategy is more valuable and I like auto zone post before me .
Last edited by Montrealcorp; 09-13-2018 at 08:28 PM.