dont be a nit

even if his range is only KK/88/55 we still have to get it in because of combos.

We can discount QQ-KK combos in 1/2 and they're still more likely than 88/55. Plus there's dead money.

ninja edit: JLB why do you think the same thing as me but post faster...

And what would the distribution for QQ/KK be in light of how the hand has played out, particularly between check/shoving the turn and other lines possible with the same holding in that spot? My point is that if Villain held 55/88 he would very often take this exact line but if he held QQ/KK he would do it with a much less proportion of the time, particularly the call/call line pre flop. I don't think 1/2 is even close. What does the eq calculations look like if we change it to say 1/4?

What's the point of having PT/HM if we're going to play every hand without reference to the stats on villain? We've got a nice sample showing 17/13 which we seem to want to ignore.

KK/QQ = 6 combos each = 12 combos
0.25 * 12 = 4 combos

55/88 = 4 combos

50:50 --> dead money = profit --> 3:1 = lots of it.

call

you'd have to discount them down to 1/12th weighting ie. 1 combo of KK and 0 combos of QQ or vice versa.
If you can say KK/QQ = 8% weighting and 55/88 = 100% weighting then wow you are good at ranging.

I agree PF should have been bigger. I've been sizing my reraises based on the initial raise. Is that bad?

I don't think you can ever fold this

Hand is fine, $5 PF is only thing i would change, but nothing cereal

I expect to see 77 here more than KK/QQ, your turn bet sizing is good for inducing spaz

When doing this weighing, we should also consider that even if we're in the 25% of the time that decides to flat QQ/KK preflop vs a MP1 raise (which I think is an overestimate), how often do we think he takes this line postflop? I think if he does show up with QQ/KK here, he's raising the flop, (as opposed to the turn) a pretty big majority of the time.

I have been minraising pre recently, and trust me, you need to 3b more here. $6-7.

I pot the flop, as stated before there are enough PPs that have to call the flop bet and will commit themselves. Turn I either pot or shove.

OK, why am I such a mega donk??? I don't think MP2's pf call is that bad?

Cons:
zomg set mining in 3 bet pot
IV could be running a squeeze play pretty light, diminishing IO
He is OOP

Pros:
He is closing the action
Squeeze was way to small pf, so he is guaranteed to see a 3 way flop for less than 10% of stacks - sexy

I think this really comes down to how often you squeeze IV. What is your 3bet %?? If it is closer to 3% than say 6 or 7% I think I'd set mine this all day. If it is higher where you obv squeeze lighter, then yeah, it's pretty meh.

setiming in a 3bet pot OOP, possibly multiway is HORRIBLE. No other way to say it. Unless we are super deep.

Plus if he is setmining and he DOES think IV is doing this light, then its even a WORSE play. As he will not make up the odds. He has to put IV on exactly AA/KK here for it to be profitable, and even then I am not sure it works out.

I'm so much on his side ... but there are so many posts, that say, u have to shove here :/

How can villain have KK/QQ here ever? Given <that> preflopaction and <that> flop action, he never ever has QQ/KK here ...
Maybe there are some few donks, that may play these hands like that, but here villain is a 17/13 reg, so i don't think that villain is a passive idiot and i don't see any +EV in calling with KK here on the flop, and villain knows that or not?
Additionally i don't see anyone calling flop but c/r turn with pockets like 99/TT/JJ
And there is no draw out there (can't imagine villain calling flop with two clubs :O)

Personally i fold my AA to the turn shove. But i don't have to call that shove, because i think, that checking the turn is much more +EV than betting the turn.

I agree 100% that if IV squeezes light (which I'm sure he does) it is completely terrible and set mining OOP in general is terrible.

Let's make it a little more hypothetical. Let's say that villain on the button is a nit, and 3bet % over a decent sample is 2% or less. I would def want to call such a small 3 bet even OOP to set mine. Under conditions that specific, is it terrible? Seems like this could be important for me to straighten out, lol.

Do this. Look at all your PP QQ-22 where you flat a 3bet OOP and tell us your WR?

IV V bad 3bet size is what makes this a meh play and not a god awful play.

100 bb deep it is terrible, you need to stack him an insane amount of the time to make it profitable.
And obv it does not make up for the times he has AK, or for the times he has KK and an A comes or the times he oversets you.

Ill draw the line around 160 BB but it is perfectly arbitrary.

Hmmm, I can't figure out how to filter for being OOP in HEM. But from what I have seen so far I'm convinced. The sample is pretty small (thankfully I don't actually do this much) but it's a mega losing sample.

I wouldn't have even asked about this if the squeeze were bigger, but I'm definitely going to up my stack size requirements to think about playing in these spots in the future.

Thanks for the discussion guys.

Sorry for stealing your post, but I agree that villain's preflop call is 100% standard and wanted to flesh some stuff out.

OK, but we're only talking pre flop here. Let's take a look at the spot where we made the turn bet.

To begin, can we agree on that Villain is at best equally likely to have flopped a big overpair as quads/a set? That is, 4 combos QQ/KK and 4 combos 55/88.

Now, we are at the turn and Villain has checked to us. If he has a big pair we will get another PSB out of him on the river almost all the time if we check behind on the turn. Say $25 on average.

If Villain has quads/a set he will try to felt it if we bet the turn. Either now or on the river.

So when we bet the turn with the intention to call a shove or call/bet again on the river if checked to we are risking the difference between our whole stack and the amount that would have ended up in the pot anyway, had we checked behind and called/bet the river. About $25. And since we now play for stacks we also stand to gain $25 more than if we had checked behind and played for one bet on the river.

Out of the times we bet the turn and the rest of the stacks end up in the pot, does Villain have a losing hand equally or more often than when he has us crushed? We had a 50/50 distribution on the flop but how about now? And how about if Villain is even less likely to play his big pairs in a strange way pre flop..?

IMO the last $25 (i.e. bet the turn and call the shove) is a losing bet and I think a check behind on the turn is far superior.

I think we were actually agreeing there, but I may have worded it in a confusing way. I was saying we want his range to be skewed to monsters preflop to increase our implied odds.

Edit: Also, no need to worry about stealing the post, lol. Glad you added your thoughts.

No, we can't agree that villain is equally likely to have an overpair as quads/FH on the flop. I don't agree at all with your discounting overpairs to 1/4 and even then I did your math for you and showed that it's still a call at a ridiculously discounted rate. I thought discounting them by 1/2 was already ridiculous.

Like I said, in order to not get stacks in here and have it be +EV on the turn, you have to put him squarely on quads/FH and basically say he almost never has KK/QQ which is what you are doing when you discount from 12 combos all the way down to 1 combo (and if he has 1 combo it's still breakeven).

If you are even considering not putting money in with AA in a 3bet pot on a paired board which makes it even harder to hit anything I have no idea on what kind of board you are willing to stack AA. There isn't a single good board for you then except for Axx or AAx.

Pretty sure I wrote big overpair thus implying the already mentioned KK/QQ combos. Where do you find Villains taking a call/call line with >25% of those hands preflop in a spot like the one in question?

this is where I am going to disagree. Sure villains call is 100% standard, but I am going to bet that its -EV. From the DB's I have gone through I havent' seen small-mid PPs positive in 3bet pots excluding BTN vs Blind defense (that is a different concept), and I haven't seen one person yet be postive in 3bet pots OOP multi way.

I think people way overestmate IO in these situations and I have the following theories on why we don't in as much money as we think we should;

1) If you look at the sets you hit, look at the hands you stacked, I said 35% of them are not TPTK or OP but include combo draws and aggro villains bluffing.
2) People play better in big pots, if PFR is flatted by multiple players, he can shut down easily
3) While people stack off lightly in 3bet pots, people stack off very tightly in multiway pots
4) the cooler factor is higher
5) With PPs there are many ways we can win the pot, including floating and stealling the pot, or winning at SD unimproved this adds significantly to our WR, in 3bet pots (multi-way) we have almost no room to make moves and we don't have the initiative
6) Being OOP its very hard to stack someone.

So yeah we look at the RIO and see 16ish, and think good to go...but I think that is oversimplifying it.

I do challenge people to look at the mid PP in 3bet pots both HU and multiway and report their WR with them.

We need mpethy to give his 2cents on this.

I definitely agree that overall this situation is a losing proposition, however I don't think that means that there are not very specific instances where the stars align it is OK. Although even the OK situations are probably just meh ok.

So I guess it probably makes sense for the vast majority of us micro donks to just avoid the situation and plug a definite leak, rather than search for the needle in the hay stack where it is EV+.