Mers - you know 3betting this hand without reads is bad....snap out of it

1. Vs a random i tend toward just flat calling with a 66 type of hand, most of the time unless we flop a set we want to have pot control.

2. In such coordinated board your bet size is ok , i would bet the same amount, or really close to it

3. That 3 doesn't change a thing, the problem is that for now you don't have info on villain (hence my answer to point number one), and you are giving him spots to bluff/value his hand, (the result you don't gain any info)

I would bet/fold this turn 2/3 pot. If he ships it.. maybe a big leak , but i'm folding this.


I think this is really close. Not a spot i would be really happy to be. With more reads this could change into a easy shove situation, or easy fold.

I guess my response to this is that you are three betting pre here with 66 and not 88. I mean, with 88 you are going to get into a lot of "close" spots as well, but a few less and more discernable against an unknown. I'd be much happier crai with 88 on this board then 66.

And then as far as the turn is concerned, you know, this is in game ****. Like, if he SNAPPED the flop and then snap bet the turn 660, you know, we're all predators here, so sometimes you can just smell it. I think default posting line is 2/3rds bet. So,, cheers on your read here!


Barry

What's the villains screen name? This can help us with reads.

read title Assume no timing smells.

I can't remember, never saw the name before, assume it was a fish.

ugh this pot is huge and we don't really have anything good.

i don't agree with the 3-bet pre. i doubt many ppl fold to 3-bets in the first hand (they always justify a call with "they can't have anything on the first hand"). the flop bet is big too, i'd prefer something more like 130-150. I really don't think making it 200 will get us additional folds or whatever.

As played I think you have to fold this turn but its a really ****ty spot to end up in.

Where there numbers and random capitalizations in it? Did it have a year at the end between 1974 and 1986?

Are you suggesting people over the age of 23 can't play poker?

as played Jam after he bets pot on turn.

It got 3bet pre he is putting you on over cards not 6's figured your flop bet was a standard cbet once you check he takes it as weakness and bets big to take it down there the odds he hit that flop are very low his 3bet calling range is most likely suited paint, and even if he did have an overpair like Q's would he betting pot most likely not because he wants to keep you in the hand not scare you away and thats exactly what that pot bet on the turn says. Its like he is screaming for you too fold, the last thing he wants if for you to jam.

Just to add some reasons as to why 3betting preflop is not optimal:

- On a lot of flop/turn combos we will get to call/call and get some reads on how light he likes to 2 barrel, etc.
- If we do flop three of a kind, sixes, and he also flops big, we are likely to win a very large pot regardless of whether we reraise before the flop
- Our hand plays better without the initiative as by check/calling flops and turns, we keep the pot small, let him bluff, and lose less against better flopped made hands. While we do have the option to cede the initiative by checking before the flop after 3balling, we are in an awkward spot if/when he bets.

I'd bet 155 on the flop, and as played, I'm gonna go against the consensus and advocate a turn fold. Villain's bet size has already indicated he's a fish - clearly this is a way ahead / way behind spot but I think you are going to see random 7x pretty often and if villain is bad, as we have reason to believe, he will likely spew hard in the future. Prolly get it in if this is a cash game and we know villain will always reload but even then it's prolly a bit close

i am never folding here against an unknown in the first hand. to many unknowns are tilting or terrible when they sit you in husngs imo

I'm sure it's been agreed that flatting pre is best but I thought i'd write up some of my thoughts on choosing a hand to 3bet based on how a variety of postflop situations unfold. 3betting pretty much any pair OOP so low that your plan can not include some significant amount of situations where we can value bet across a few streets is gonna be very difficult to play more profitably than flat calling. We're often going to mistakenly fold the best hand to a turn bet (as i probably would have in this exact hand if i got to the turn this way), and we're adding far too many medium strength hands to our 'in a big pot OOP' range. On the other side, pretty much every 'advantage' that you can name for 3betting this hand is the exact same advantage you have in a 3bet pot when you have total air, so there's no reason to waste a small pair's flat calling value without some read that you can very profitably 5bet jam over a high frequency 4better (this situation might not even apply to 75bb sngs but i figured i'd mention it anyways).

Also, I think the flop bet is bad because it doesn't really set up a good remaining stack size, especially for what our hand is. There are certain situations where i might pot the flop with the intention of jamming a lot of turns, on boards where fish will stack off lightly with draws/one pair hands and i have a hand for value that is happy getting it in on the majority of these turn cards. There are other situations (like this one) where if i'm going to lead i bet something like 155 because it allows for 3 streets of reasonably sized betting on a board that isn't filled with strong draw possibilities. I'm not incredibly familiar with the average preflop and flop range for a $100 sng player here so I can't really decide if i prefer check/calling or betting 155, but those are the two options i choose between in general for this board texture, hand and effective stack size.

and fwiw i think the turn spot is quite close between all options to address your 3rd question.

Thanks all, makes sense.

Against a random Im a bit tighter with my 3 bets until I realize what villain is capable of. As for your flop bet, I like it as long as you told yourself what you will do on possible turns. For example, will you C/F if an ace comes, or what if a 6 comes, or another 7, or what if a 2 comes? As long as you thought about what to do on all possible turns. As for your check on the turn, I like it. It is possibly the safest card in the deck (aside from a 4) and his pot size bets makes us feel all the safer. When a random pots that turn it is saying he wants us out of the hand. In my mind he either has a 7 (which most times I dont think is the case) a straight draw, or overs.

Novel insight, don't 3bet this pre. Well, unless you have an exaggerated read that will make the decision easy.

The rest is sort of irrelevant if we're not 3betting this. This is sort of why we're not too. This is a pretty damn good flop for us and we're still being presented w/ a lot of difficult decisions. I mean, you're more comfortable in a smaller pot where we can c/c at least 2 streets given this flop, right? And on like KJ7 or w/e we're just feeling gross.

1. flatting pre as very strong preference

definitely 3bet. if we're not 3betting here then wtf do we 3bet with? we have a pocket pair so it's in any top 10% range. not 3betting here with 66 leaves you with a polarized 3bet range in any situation. Also since conventional wisdom that villain sees is to flat 3bets a lot here rarely 4bet and often fold since it's everything left over to do.

As for post flop you are playing with top 10% of range. bet flop (smaller imho but this is largely based on intuition, i'd bet .5 pot.) then when he flats obviously bet turn, perfect time to turn hand into bluff as this is what you would be doing with KK so you at worst get to balance getting paid off when you have an over pair (which in this cases is a huge part of your range since you're in top 10% and 88+ is overpair). 66 is great too because river you get to shove the gut shot and the full house and check fold otherwise (being good some part of the time when they check back ace high)

I think saying "it's hard to play post flop" is a terrible reason to not 3bet here.

dude, im not trying to be a dick. but, just.... no.

pretty much nothing in this entire post is an actual reason to do anything. it's just a description of what 66 is (a pair, within the top 10% of preflop allin equity hands) and is completely out of context. to name a few things:

1.) being polarized is not a problem.
2.) him never 4betting should make us never 3bet 66, as it plays terribly postflop and is best used as a preflop semibluff or a postflop hand a large stack-to-pot ratio (for set value).
3.) turning 66 into a bluff here doesn't make the least bit of sense (think about what you're making him fold in order to bluff).
4.) your last sentence about being able to shove a straight and full house and check fold otherwise is not an advantage, it is basically just a description of the fact that you are only happy with your hand on 10% of rivers.

There's nothing remotely definite about needing to 3bet here. Read the rest of the thread if you want to review why.

For value: Hands that have better postflop playability. As a bluff: Well, it depends. But 66 is in a gray zone and 3betting it readless is dubious, not some kind of absolute imperative.

The phrase "top 10% range" can be misleading, and irrelevant to many HU NL spots. Here, you imply that such a range includes all pocket pairs. It sounds to me like you're talking about a "top 10%" pf shoving or felting range. That's not exactly the sort of range you should be using when deciding how to 3bet, especially when it comes to hands like 22-77. Postflop playability is much more important, especially early on when we're operating in the relative dark OOP against an unknown.

No. I can 3bet 88+, AT+, KQ+ and not have a polarized 3bet range. More importantly, it is often appropriate and desirable to have a polarized 3bet range against certain villain types. For example {88+, AT+, KQ+ / one gap connectors, some suited hands, whatever} against someone who raises pf often, but is nitty and only continues tightly and with strong holdings when we 3bet him.

Not sure what this means.

I kind of see that you're talking about balancing our play for the times we have KK versus the times we have 66 or something in our fabled "top 10% range," but I feel you're focused on the wrong things and misapplying some concepts. First of all, balancing our play during the first hand of the tourney against a random is highly overrated. Secondly, as I tried to indicate above, we simply don't "have to" 3bet 66 out of some absurd concern to maintain the integrity of some ill-conceived "top 10% range." Thirdly, if we do 3bet 66 for some reason, our goal on this turn card is not to "turn it into a bluff" (for some strange balancing reason or whatever), but to find and select an action that is likeliest to induce villain to put money in with worse. This can be checking, underbetting, something like that.

It goes a little beyond that. We're readless, we're building a pot and possibly barreling out of position with a hand that doesn't flop too well, and has few outs to improve when possibly behind. Anyway, other posts in this thread discuss the reasons why choosing not to 3bet 66 here is appealing.

Oh, and IN AFTER JOE AND BAREWIRE!!!1111

I really don't get how a bunch of Heads up players are arguing against a 3-bet to "avoid a tough spot". These "tough spots" are where heads up players should have their biggest edge.

Flop bet is a little to much for my taste, but still fine. Turn check is fantastic if you were trying to induce. The (i'm assuming) instant pot turn bet is such a trademark fish move, that I can't believe anyone would fold here. Although I will admit, the occasional fish shows A7 or A3, but that is more of a rarity.

Idk, I live and die by the light calls; it is more high variance, but I definitely feel like it improves my game drastically.

^Do not reduce this entire thread to "don't 3bet because we must avoid a tough spot." There are different ways of playing some given hand in a given spot. Here we have 66 OOP first hand against an unknown. If you decide to 3bet it, you should be prepared to talk about your motivation for and the pros and cons of doing so, and compare those to flat calling with it. Some posts have addressed this. Feel free to pick up on some of those points and tell us why 3betting is appealing to you in these circumstances.

By the way, I'm not personally suggesting that 3betting is automatically a doomed venture or -EV. I just strongly prefer flat calling, and I don't understand it when people insist that 3betting is the clear and obvious choice. I can accept that some players might prefer to 3bet and can make it work well enough.

It's clearly not the easiest choice and it clearly is more variant and more dependent on post flop plans you're right.

But I think the key mistake in doing this is that the hand in question was mers's. We can definitely assume he's going to be trying to play the hand optimally afterwards, that he's going to push his edges and make the right plays to MAXIMIZE the fact that 66 is actually a great hand post flop!

You always have a pair on the flop
and sometimes (umm 10% or is it 15% i forget?) you have 3 of a kind which has huge flop equity.
You have WAY more good flops than your opponent. It's more likely to flop a set than a flush draw.

And it has great all in equity, ie a measure of showdown value, against wide ranges (which we have to assume since we have NO READS to suggest which way if any he is restricting his range by betting), stove it vs 50% all the way up to 100%.

You need to play well to get to the river well, sure, and so the advice HAS to be taken with a grain of salt and an application to YOU, but that's poker. the best advice is to do this ALOT at low stakes to get good at it imho.

When you restrict yourself away from 3betting low pocket pairs you start having more difficult decisions when you do 3bet! by using that 88+ AT KQ range then you are in big trouble because THE FLOP will polarize you! any high flop will make your hand range polarized between strongly hit and didn't hit, with it weighted toward hitting, while low card flops will polarize it towards pp or no pp, which will automatically weight it towards air. Now it makes life so much easier for villain to exploit you for being a nit in addition to you losing equity (you didn't win all you could hence you lost some) when you didn't 3bet that pocket pair.

I know this is sketchy, but I think it's correct for a number of reasons besides those I wrote.

oh and as for not reading the post I read most of it (tbh some posts were tl;dr read the cliffs) the arguments that made by far the most sense were Mers's and so in some ways my post was a +1 to what he suggested in the first place, and I thought that it was never correctly answered by the other posters.