Pocket 9s on Button: 3-bet MW pot.

Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 409 ✭✭✭
Playing $1/$3 at MGM National Harbor on a Sunday afternoon 4 hours into session. Hero is dealt :9c: :9h: on the button and sits with $510.

One player limps in MP, cutoff raises to $12. I elected not to 3-bet this because I actually thought there was a good chance we would go heads up as was in this pot given how tight SB and BB were playing (both OMC types) and MP was limp/folding very often when not in position. Cutoff also has about $1400 in front of him and has 4-bet a few times. Just didn't see this as a good spot.

Interestingly, SB 3-bets but for the min to $24. BB calls, Cutoff calls and I elect to call.

First question: should I consider folding here? The pot is now $87 and I have to put in just $12 more so I figured I should be trying to set mine here, especially in position. But range-wise, I'm probably at a coinflip against his range at best. And this going MW, I don't have much equity if I don't hit a set. Ultimately, I thought I was getting a good price on a call but would appreciate any comments on thought process here.

Going to flop:

SB --> ~200
BB --> 250
Cutoff -->1375
Hero --> 486

Flop comes :9s: :Ah: :Qc:

SB and BB both check. Cutoff bets $35 into the $99 pot.

How should hero proceed? For SB to 3-bet, I think he's holding QQ+, AQ+, so there's a high probability if my range is correct he hit this board.

BB I would say is less likely to have crushed it but may still have caught a piece, realistically he's not holding AA, he got it all in pre a few hours earlier with aces, but to call that bet, I would think he's holding 77 - QQ, AT+, KQ, KJ, QJ.

Cutoff on the other hand can have a much wider range here IMO. He was hyper aggressive post flop and made some pretty liberal calls when 3-bet for much bigger prices when in position. I set it pretty wide (or what I think is wide in a 3-bet pot from a tight player): 22--JJ, A2s+, ATo - AQo,. 78s - KQs +, 9To - KQo.

So cutoff is not the player I am concerned about at the moment. His style of play and how I perceived his range does not support the notion that he flopped a higher set. SB, however, certainly could have and be slow playing it. BB, too, but I think it's less likely. However, both of their ranges will probably continue with hands worse than mine if I just call. SB may continue with a hands worse than mine to a raise, but he's also going to continue with a few combos that crush mine at the moment.

I considered also at the time that if I raised and SB shoved, it may push BB and CO out of the hand, whereas I really want cutoff to stay in because even if SB has me dominated, I think I am way ahead of him at the moment. His aggressive style and willingness to bluff rivers might build enough of a side pot even if SB went all in on turn or river.

So I'm really not sure how to proceed here and any comments are much appreciated.
«13

Comments

  • LoveFishLoveFish IllinoisRed Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
    Pre flop I think calling on the button with 99 is fine. You absolutely never fold to a min raise to 24$ 100% call.
    On the flop Since we are on the button and in position, with the flop being relatively dry, I am probably just going to call. This is a spot where we are going to raise the turn.

    However if for example SB led flop and BB called along with CO I would raise.


    We might also raise here if the SB who 3 bet pre, Cbets. We have identified now that he is strong and that he is able to call a raise.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭✭
    Flop comes :9s: :Ah: :Qc:

    SB and BB both check. Cutoff bets $35 into the $99 pot.

    How should hero proceed? For SB to 3-bet, I think he's holding QQ+, AQ+, so there's a high probability if my range is correct he hit this board.

    Then why would he not c-bet it ?
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 409 ✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    Flop comes :9s: :Ah: :Qc:

    SB and BB both check. Cutoff bets $35 into the $99 pot.

    How should hero proceed? For SB to 3-bet, I think he's holding QQ+, AQ+, so there's a high probability if my range is correct he hit this board.

    Then why would he not c-bet it ?

    I think given COs aggressive style, he could have been slowplaying a set. I think he'd also check KK here. You wouldn't ever consider checking here with 3 players behind you, two of whom are significantly more aggressive than you if you flopped a set here? (Cutoff and myself.) I'd let CO do my betting for me personally, that was my thought as to why he might have not c-bet it.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    I don't think playing post flop perfectly should be your biggest concern here. You are going to make a lot of money in this situation through either a turn raise or a flop raise. You cannot be worried about a higher set or you are going to be playing way too passively.

    IMO, your play and your questions preflop show some significant problems. 99 is a nearly mandatory 3bet vs. a cutoff open, or at least a 3bet 80% of the time. As played, the fact that you are even asking about considering folding to a minraise is not good. You should never, ever, ever be folding this with pot odds of 7:1, even if V tells you he is only doing this with AA and KK.

    Also a side note, if SB is any good at all, he should be squeezing here with a MUCH wider range than you put him on. He is a total nit if his range really is what you say it is.
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 409 ✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I don't think playing post flop perfectly should be your biggest concern here. You are going to make a lot of money in this situation through either a turn raise or a flop raise. You cannot be worried about a higher set or you are going to be playing way too passively.

    IMO, your play and your questions preflop show some significant problems. 99 is a nearly mandatory 3bet vs. a cutoff open, or at least a 3bet 80% of the time. As played, the fact that you are even asking about considering folding to a minraise is not good. You should never, ever, ever be folding this with pot odds of 7:1, even if V tells you he is only doing this with AA and KK.

    Also a side note, if SB is any good at all, he should be squeezing here with a MUCH wider range than you put him on. He is a total nit if his range really is what you say it is.

    Agree with most of what you said. I should have 3-bet it, and I agree I shouldn't even be considering not calling. I only really posed that question because I was sure I shouldn't even consider a fold that I wanted to make sure I wasn't off in that judgement. I knew I had the odds to call, but I'd rather open myself up to looking like a dolt than to rely on what I think is a 100% the right play miss an opportunity to get some feedback, but I 100% get your comment.

    SB was a total nit but my range could certainly be off. People in these games just rarely are squeezing to begin with and this V did not fit the profile of someone who is going to apply pressure with a non-narrow range. He seemed to me like a fit or folder.

    Regarding not being worried about a higher set: I wouldn't characterize my comment as worrying. I'm more concerned about losing CO and BB. I'd like to keep them in the hand another street given that CO was firing second barrels pretty consistently. If he fires again, I can raise and SB is effectively priced into a call. I was more thinking of building a largest pot possible here to try to get stacks in.

    Is this thought process logical at the very least? I'm trying to do better at thinking downstream.
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭✭
    "Also a side note, if SB is any good at all, he should be squeezing here with a MUCH wider range than you put him on. He is a total nit if his range really is what you say it is." the ole min-raise squeeze. Hella FE.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Is this thought process logical at the very least? I'm trying to do better at thinking downstream.

    Having a solid preflop game and knowing what your range is on the flop is the most important fundamental to NLHE. Thinking about how to get tricky downstream is not where you should be spending your time, imo.

  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 458 ✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    99 is a nearly mandatory 3bet vs. a cutoff open, or at least a 3bet 80% of the time.

    Why? I see myself always flatting here so would love to know why that's so bad.

  • Mr. DontMr. Dont Red Chipper Posts: 370 ✭✭✭
    To me the most interesting part is pre flop.min raise, which I dont.k ow what EP was trying to accomplish other than everyone play correctly, call with wide range to see flop.

    I would raise after min raise was called, its just showing no one has nothing strong.

    In general, I think pre flop min raise in multi way, OOP is 100% mistake.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    To me the most interesting part is pre flop.min raise, which I dont.k ow what EP was trying to accomplish other than everyone play correctly, call with wide range to see flop.

    I would raise after min raise was called, its just showing no one has nothing strong.

    In general, I think pre flop min raise in multi way, OOP is 100% mistake.

    I don't typically advocate for a min-raise here. Note, though, that you are confused by it. Others might be, too. As a result, you and others might make mistakes in the hand -- calling too loosely, not ranging V, etc. So, it's hard to argue that it's a "100% mistake" when, indeed, it's more likely that players are playing incorrectly against it.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    99 is a nearly mandatory 3bet vs. a cutoff open, or at least a 3bet 80% of the time.

    Why? I see myself always flatting here so would love to know why that's so bad.

    totally agree...
    any time someone tells you that something is "mandatory", you can discard their advice as rote and sub optimal.
    maybe HU online... but in a live full-ring game, NOTHING is ever mandatory.
    live cash games are all about adjustments and deviations.
    If Hero thought that the CO raise would fold everyone out and they would go heads up... and CO was overly aggro... a flat with a large part of his range is fine.

    that said - @Jordan Power you need to have some sort of guiding principals that help you with your decision-making.
    when you're set-mining, statistics tell us that you'll hit a set 1 out of 7.5 times.
    (they don't tell you how often you'll have set over set... but we'll talk about that later)
    so a lot of players have "rules" for calling to set-mine.
    some players calculate that the stack from the last raiser should be at least 10X of the last bet. So when CO raises to 12 and he's got 1375 behind, you've got way more than 10X so you're good. (Other players want more of a cushion an seek out 15X... you can decide which multiplier you prefer... I'll use 10X for now)
    So you call and SB makes it 24.
    Two things are in play here:
    1.) your 12 is not yours anymore - it's part of the pot. So for you to call, you only need to call 12 more. When it gets to you, the pot 84-ish... that means there's already 6X the bet size in the pot... so for you to make a "correct" call - you need to be able to earn $48 more by the river to make your call here a good call. Since every player left has over $48 in their stack - calling here is +EV.
    2.) when you hit your set, you want to build the pot.
    While A Q 9 rb may look innocuous, it is NOT! A lot of turn cards can help someone make the nuts that can decimate your stack. On such a wimpy open and 3-bet, we can expect KJ, JT and T8 to be in our opponent's hands.
    Don't "worry" about losing anyone in any pot... anytime you can get someone to fold their equity post, you're printing money. Even if SB has KK (2 outs) - he's still got equity. Or if CO has AJ... If you raise and SB shoves - that's fine.
    don't try to control how other players will play... you cant.
    don't play a game of milking players - ESP in a multiway pot.
    that's a good way to expose your stack and lose all of it.
    Play your range strong - and force them to put more money in bad/ drawing.

    vs a $35 bet - I'd raise it to around 115 (depending on your image and how you've sized your bets in the past)
    [something to consider here is your bet size.... if SB has 200, you want to bet enough that it makes it tough on CO to call - but also not too big so that if SB shoves, it reopens the betting. and you can then re-shove.)
    if everyone folds - so what? what's wrong with winning a $130 pot? (we've already made 10X our $12 call... so we're playing winning poker.)

    what about the check from the SB?
    if he's got a set - we're gifting him an early X-mas present!
    Sets are some of the strongest hands we will have on the flop. If we're set over setted, so be it. We cannot play weak or act scared.
    They happen so infrequently... I think Google says it happens 1 out of 97 times.
    So, if SB has AA or QQ.... merry christmas.

    besides, SB has more combos of AK and KK in his range than AA or QQ - so we should damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.

    back to the original comment about why flat pre?
    in most ⅓ games, you don't need to be deceptive, tricky or balanced to make money.
    99 is obviously NOT a very strong hand pre.
    say you did 3-bet.... say, you made it 40.
    now SB makes it 100.... now what?
    exactly.
    if table was all super deep - then by all means, 3-bet like a spewy monkey.
    but with a hand that benefits more from seeing a flop - calling is always more +EV than trying to play a preflop game of chicken like you see tournament players do.

    we're here to make money.
    and we'll make more money by playing post in low SPR pots than bloating it pre.
    besides, we have position.
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 409 ✭✭✭
    Hey @kagey thanks for the great response.That was really helpful, especially the part about playing the range strong and if they happen to have flopped a better set, so be it. I'm slowly coming out of my shell regarding running into a monster but I know this is something I just have to work on and rely on the fact that I am well bankrolled to play $1/$3 and let that handle the variance.

    I did in fact raise to $115 and everyone folded, so a nice pot was collected. There was another comment made above about not worrying about playing perfect poker. I think that's good advice as well.
  • The_Juic3The_Juic3 Red Chipper Posts: 29 ✭✭
    This was a good read for me as 99 -JJ seem to cause me a little grief.

    99 in this spot for me personally I see myself flatting a higher percentage than I am 3-betting so I don't have an issue with a flat. upon first reading the post and seeing the small blind blind check after the small 3 bet, my initial reaction thought that they may hold TT -QQ with the odd sprinkling of smaller pocket pairs. This is likely due to bias because a lot of the players that fit OMC profiles that Ive played with tend to raise their AA to really large sizes for "protection" and then where they flop sets on connected type boards bet rather large to again protect against whatever the most obvious draw is.

    That is my two cents on the SB in this situation, would love any feedback!
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 409 ✭✭✭
    I actually wish I had 3-bet it looking back on it. CO was opening wide, blinds were generally passive. Decent spot given how bad I am at playing these middling pocket pairs post flop... I struggle with these as well.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    99 is a nearly mandatory 3bet vs. a cutoff open, or at least a 3bet 80% of the time.

    Why? I see myself always flatting here so would love to know why that's so bad.

    I should first clarify that, after some thought, you could advocate for flatting here like 10-15% of the time. Most of my peers advocate for no flats vs. a CO on the button, and this is my general strategy, but flatting here once in a blue moon can't be too terrible. However, flatting here often is certainly not optimal.

    I made this comment assuming that the CO is opening a standard GTO preflop range. In my experience in live play, players tend to be impatient and open a slightly wider range than GTO. If CO is a super nit who only raises top 5% of hands, then obviously a 3bet is not mandatory. But if CO is opening a standard GTO range (~25% of hands), and you are trying to make the highest EV plays possible, then 99 should generally be 3bet. You will take down the pot maybe 20-30% of the time, and when you do get called, you will be in position, heads up (90% of the time) with very good equity and an uncapped range. Just because @kagey thinks the advice can be discarded does not mean it is incorrect.

    Flatting gives the BB far too good of pot odds to call, and you are probably going to go multiway like 35% of the time, which is terrible for a mid pocket pair. Additionally, barring any reads, SB is highly incentivized to squeeze a good portion of their range when you flat, since your range is capped.

    99 is a strong hand against a 25% CO opening range. Anyone who tells you otherwise has not done the equity calculation.

    And, of course, @kagey's comment that "NOTHING is ever mandatory in live play" is incorrect. Does kagey really want to say that if CO open jams for 20 BB, calling with JJ-AA is not mandatory? Or that 3betting QQ vs. a CO open in your situation is not "nearly mandatory", to use my original exact phrasing? Ironically, saying "NOTHING is ever mandatory" is the rote advice.
    I might be misreading him/her, but @kagey seems to not like 3betting, because "what happens if SB 4bets?" But, of course, the action flat -> SB squeeze is going to happen more often than 3bet -> SB 4bet, so the knife cuts both ways.
  • The_Juic3The_Juic3 Red Chipper Posts: 29 ✭✭
    Phil I don't have much (any) experience with GTO play. Using a +/- of 5% if the CO is opening 5% tighter, or 5% wider range, how much does that affect the 99 being 85-90% 3 bet? I am using it doesn't change it a ton (certainly not if its to the looser end)

    Dislaimer: This may be a terrible question
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I should first clarify that, after some thought, you could advocate for flatting here like 10-15% of the time. Most of my peers advocate for no flats vs. a CO on the button, and this is my general strategy, but flatting here once in a blue moon can't be too terrible. However, flatting here often is certainly not optimal.

    flatting and 3-betting are both good options.
    if someone 3-bets 99 100% of the time - they will be very exploitable
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I made this comment assuming that the CO is opening a standard GTO preflop range.

    assuming that any live player knows what standard GTO is - let alone has a premeditated opening range is actually quite amusing. (and often wrong)
    In a ⅓ game... esp. a ⅓ at National Harbor - GTO cannot be properly implemented... nor is it the most profitable way to play.
    So, we should not be talking GTO unless we're talking about a car.
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    And, of course, @kagey's comment that "NOTHING is ever mandatory in live play" is incorrect. Does kagey really want to say that if CO open jams for 20 BB, calling with JJ-AA is not mandatory?

    If the shover is OMC who only open jams AA or KK... then, yeah... calling 20 BB with QQ or JJ in NOT mandatory. Just like....
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    If CO is a super nit who only raises top 5% of hands, then obviously a 3bet is not mandatory.

    Thank you for making my point for me - and realizing that my comment is NOT incorrect.
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    Or that 3betting QQ vs. a CO open in your situation is not "nearly mandatory", to use my original exact phrasing? Ironically, saying "NOTHING is ever mandatory" is the rote advice.

    seems to me that you don't understand what rote is....
    rote
    noun
    \ˈrōt \
    1 : the use of memory usually with little intelligence
    2 : mechanical or unthinking routine or repetition

    Live poker is a game of "it depends."
    Nothing is automatic.
    Nothing is "standard."
    Nothing is mandatory.
    Anytime I can predict what you will do - I will exploit you.

    Live low limit poker is about using ALL the available information and making the most optimal play in each situation. It's a puzzle that can be solve provided you keep your entire toolbox open and careful consider which tool is appropriate for the specific job.

    Granted, there are plays/ines that are "standard" and we are blase about results... but these are plays against balanced, thinking players... which most of the ⅓ player pool is not... and (from my experience) most of the National Harbor players are not.
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I might be misreading him/her, but @kagey seems to not like 3betting, because "what happens if SB 4bets?" But, of course, the action flat -> SB squeeze is going to happen more often than 3bet -> SB 4bet, so the knife cuts both ways.
    3-betting has its place in live low-limit games. It's typically for value - but can also be used in position vs very aggressive players.
    BUT... as I mentioned earlier... "it depends."
    IF SB is a tight 3-bettor/4-bettor and has a small stack... we're better off keeping the SPR low... so we can realize our equity with proper odds.

    There's also a lot of value flatting a large portion of our range against wide openers from in position. After all, if we 3-bet our best hands - then what are we left with when we flat call? (seems to me like we're playing our hand face up..."

    This hand is a good example of a hand where we have to be cognitive of stack sizes behind us as well as opening frequencies of player before us.
    Since this is an "unstandard" situation... it calls for more creative thinking.
    To call for a "mandatory" anything here is, imo, sub optimal.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    The_Juic3 wrote: »
    Phil I don't have much (any) experience with GTO play. Using a +/- of 5% if the CO is opening 5% tighter, or 5% wider range, how much does that affect the 99 being 85-90% 3 bet? I am using it doesn't change it a ton (certainly not if its to the looser end)

    Dislaimer: This may be a terrible question

    I don't really know the answer to this without using a solver. Intuitively, a tighter range means folding out more of the very bottom of your range and flatting some of your weakest 3bets. So maybe you could say if CO is opening 15-20%, it makes sense to flat more often here.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    @kagey
    I've seen too many debates on RCP turn into a "who's smarter than whom" debate, and that's definitely not my goal here. But I think you misheard some of my statements. You seem to be thinking that I meant to say some things that I don't think I ever said. A few comments/questions:

    1) You say that if someone 3bets 99 100% of the time, they will be very exploitable. (I'm assuming you mean on the button vs. a CO open, otherwise it is a confusing statement). Why do you think this? Do you have any mathematical reason for thinking an unexploitable strategy cannot include 3betting 99 here 100% of the time? Your statement isn't obvious at all, from a mathematical POV.

    2) You seem to assume that I think that villain here knows what GTO is. I never said that nor did I imply it.

    3) My point about the 20BB shove calling range is not that you cannot find a 20BB shove range against which JJ-AA is a losing play, but rather that, without specifically knowing exactly what cards someone is holding, some moves are really statistically mandatory. If you want to play the "find a loophole just for debate's sake" game, I'll revise my statement to "it's mandatory to call a 20BB shove with AA, even against OMC." Or how about "It's mandatory to bet with the nuts in position on the river." Honestly, how can you possibly say that nothing is mandatory in poker? The entire beauty of poker is that it all starts with the knowledge that AA is a mandatory VPIP vs. the blinds, and everything else unfolds from that basic premise.
    The point of the 20BB example was that, with no info given on a player, some moves are just better than others, and it doesn't "depend". Here, with no perceived OMC image in CO's opening range, 99 is a nearly mandatory 3bet. And I still believe that statement is true.

    4) Your statement that "Anytime I can predict what you will do... I will exploit you" is simply wrong, if by it you mean "If I know that you are 3betting 99 here, I will exploit you". This is an honest question for you, @kagey. If someone lays out their entire 3bet strategy to me, and it is unexploitable, then how can I exploit it?

    5) Lastly, I would just say this: thinking that this situation is somehow 'unstandard', or that "each specific situation is a puzzle that needs to be solved with a specific tool" is the sort of thinking that keeps low-stakes players at lower stakes. Trying to figure out how to get max value from one particular hand by trying to solve a puzzle in each situation is simply a bad way to look at poker. And I think we owe question-askers on the forum better answers than that.

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    kagey wrote: »
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I made this comment assuming that the CO is opening a standard GTO preflop range.

    assuming that any live player knows what standard GTO is - let alone has a premeditated opening range is actually quite amusing. (and often wrong)
    In a ⅓ game... esp. a ⅓ at National Harbor - GTO cannot be properly implemented... nor is it the most profitable way to play.
    So, we should not be talking GTO unless we're talking about a car.

    So we can't talk about other GTO ? :)
    517TXD4WEML._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    1) You say that if someone 3bets 99 100% of the time, they will be very exploitable. (I'm assuming you mean on the button vs. a CO open, otherwise it is a confusing statement). Why do you think this? Do you have any mathematical reason for thinking an unexploitable strategy cannot include 3betting 99 here 100% of the time? Your statement isn't obvious at all, from a mathematical POV.

    If you 3bet 100% of 99, then either you're 3betting super wide (because like what... a 8% 3bet range aka 99+, ATs+, KJs+, AJo+, KQo?). You're 3betting too wide For any ok-ish player, a counter strategy is easy to set up and exploit your wide 3bet range (usually a good player will start to 4bet more, worst player will just call more, still putting 99 into a bad postflop situation when you hit overpair only 16% of the time).

    And there are other issues still which could be addressed by thinking in terms of absolute (sith spotted!).

    In short, I fully support @kagey : calling and raising are both viable option. Both in an exploitative approach (observation and adaptation) and "GTO"-strategy (balanced unexploitable strategy)
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Red wrote: »
    If... You're 3betting too wide... a counter strategy is easy to set up and exploit your wide 3bet range

    Agreed (with less certainty about the ease of coming up with an apt counter-strategy).

    Red wrote: »
    (usually a good player will start to 4bet more, worst player will just call more, still putting 99 into a bad postflop situation when you hit overpair only 16% of the time).

    Not sure that I agree...
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Red wrote: »
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    1) You say that if someone 3bets 99 100% of the time, they will be very exploitable. (I'm assuming you mean on the button vs. a CO open, otherwise it is a confusing statement). Why do you think this? Do you have any mathematical reason for thinking an unexploitable strategy cannot include 3betting 99 here 100% of the time? Your statement isn't obvious at all, from a mathematical POV.

    If you 3bet 100% of 99, then either you're 3betting super wide (because like what... a 8% 3bet range aka 99+, ATs+, KJs+, AJo+, KQo?). You're 3betting too wide For any ok-ish player, a counter strategy is easy to set up and exploit your wide 3bet range (usually a good player will start to 4bet more, worst player will just call more, still putting 99 into a bad postflop situation when you hit overpair only 16% of the time).

    And there are other issues still which could be addressed by thinking in terms of absolute (sith spotted!).

    In short, I fully support @kagey : calling and raising are both viable option. Both in an exploitative approach (observation and adaptation) and "GTO"-strategy (balanced unexploitable strategy)

    None of your reasons provided are mathematical. First, 99 is not in the 8th percentile of hands for 3betting. It's more like 5th percentile, and the range you provide is less than 7%. Saying that an 8% 3bet range is too wide does not make it so. If you are 3betting 6% of hands here, and the CO decides to react by 4betting 3-4%, you are going to absolutely crush him.

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest.

    The BU wants to push equity against the CO. This is a completely natural function of each seat's level of positional protection, which in turn creates each seat's potentially best choices for wagering against the next one- the range. As noted above, this accomplishes more than one objective, as any good choice would seem to.

    So what about flatting? A rational strategy includes turning 99 into 55 sometimes, because every strategy has traps or it eventually fails or should fail. The composition, in other words, the frequency, is all that matters, not just in an absolute sense, but in relationship to the opponents themselves. It is an interesting paradox that turning 99 into AK will be the best decision against one strategy and turning it into 55 is the best against another. Ultimately it says more about our opponents than us - unless we can't recognize that and instead take their tendencies as the logic of the game itself.
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 768 ✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I made this comment assuming that the CO is opening a standard GTO preflop range. In my experience in live play, players tend to be impatient and open a slightly wider range than GTO. If CO is a super nit who only raises top 5% of hands, then obviously a 3bet is not mandatory. But if CO is opening a standard GTO range (~25% of hands), and you are trying to make the highest EV plays possible, then 99 should generally be 3bet.

    So to be clear, you're saying a 3bet is not mandatory but "it depends"
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    @kagey
    1) You say that if someone 3bets 99 100% of the time, they will be very exploitable. (I'm assuming you mean on the button vs. a CO open, otherwise it is a confusing statement). Why do you think this? Do you have any mathematical reason for thinking an unexploitable strategy cannot include 3betting 99 here 100% of the time? Your statement isn't obvious at all, from a mathematical POV.

    Phil - I've done a LOT of thinking about my game/ranges/3-betting ranges...
    and the mathematical conclusion I've come to is if your 3-bet range in low limit games includes 99+, AK, AQs and maybe A5s & A4s... you're going to have too many hands in your 3-bet range. And too many that you can't defend. (which therefore becomes sub optimal)

    OP, here, wished he had 3-bet because the flop produced a 9. But statistics will tell you that with hands as strong as JJ - the flop will contain at least 1 over card 50% of the time.
    So if you're 3-betting 99 & TT - more flops will be unfavorable to us...
    PLUS, if a hand like KQ or AJ calls you... they've got as much hot/cold equity as your hand.
    So, why the 3-bet? It's not really for value according to the numbers...
    Add that to the fact that low limit players don't like to fold, and you've created the perfect storm to spewing chips.
    But if you think it's "mandatory"... then you're welcome to believe so.

    BTW... I never said anything about Button vs XX or what ever. I was simply talking in a general sense. I will sometimes 3-bet 99, sometimes call, sometimes fold. I try to take all the "mandatories" out of my game.
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    2) You seem to assume that I think that villain here knows what GTO is. I never said that nor did I imply it.

    Your post mentioned GTO:
    I made this comment assuming that the CO is opening a standard GTO preflop range

    for the CO to play a standard GTO preflop range, it seems that he should know it... which would imply that he understands what the GTO preflop range means...
    but I guess we're agreeing that we should not go down the GTO rabbit hole...

    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    4) Your statement that "Anytime I can predict what you will do... I will exploit you" is simply wrong, if by it you mean "If I know that you are 3betting 99 here, I will exploit you". This is an honest question for you, @kagey. If someone lays out their entire 3bet strategy to me, and it is unexploitable, then how can I exploit it?

    Every strategy is exploitable. Some more than others.
    If I know that you're 3-betting 99+ (because you went the hand went to show down), I will adjust my 4-bet range and you will find yourself in a cage more often than you care.
    It seems to me that you're drinking a lot of GTO kool-aid and you're thinking that certain ranges cannot be exploited live... and this is incorrect thinking because live players run the gamut from beginners, calling stations and thinking players. Very few of them play a GTO style. And for GTO to work best, you have to be playing against other GTO players. If your opponents have NO bluffs in their ranges (and only value ranges) - then for us to play a GTO range makes us more exploitable and spewy.
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    5) Lastly, I would just say this: thinking that this situation is somehow 'unstandard', or that "each specific situation is a puzzle that needs to be solved with a specific tool" is the sort of thinking that keeps low-stakes players at lower stakes. Trying to figure out how to get max value from one particular hand by trying to solve a puzzle in each situation is simply a bad way to look at poker. And I think we owe question-askers on the forum better answers than that.

    we're going to agree to disagree on this.
    it sounds like you prefer to play an Upswing Poker style where you use charts/rote ranges to determine your actions and you avoid deviations from your play. (my assumptions and maybe I'm wrong...)
    whereas, I prefer to take an approach that tries to understand the "why" of my opponent's actions as well as my own.

    I do concur that their are many "standard" spots in live poker where our actions would be standard. I don't think this is one of them.

    I fail to see how 99 is a "must" 3-bet in all situations.
    and I've explained as to why it isn't mandatory in my book - and why a flat is a good option.

    as far as what we owe question-askers here... I believe that we owe them a pathway to a process that allows them to think about their actions for themselves - NOT a rote solution.

    and to say that you don't need to understand how to solve puzzles to move up in stakes seems to me to be a gross misrepresentation of the game. If you can solve the ⅓ dynamics - then you can apply those lessons to solving 2/5, 5/10 and 10/20.
    Thinking that your actions should never deviate based on stack sizes, player profiles and position is a good way to keep you in low limit game purgatory.

    that said: the floor is yours.
    I stated my position and provided rationale as to why I think this is a more optimal approach.

    but I'm not here to argue with you.
    I've stopped posting for a while because there are too many posters who seek answers as opposed to why one answer is more ideal in this spot.
    so, I'll let you have the last word.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Agree or disagree with any of @kagey's post,
    kagey wrote: »
    I've stopped posting for a while because there are too many posters who seek answers as opposed to why one answer is more ideal in this spot.
    so, I'll let you have the last word.

    this is our forum's great loss. Come back, @kagey! :)
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    Phil - I've done a LOT of thinking about my game/ranges/3-betting ranges...
    and the mathematical conclusion I've come to is if your 3-bet range in low limit games includes 99+, AK, AQs and maybe A5s & A4s... you're going to have too many hands in your 3-bet range. And too many that you can't defend. (which therefore becomes sub optimal)

    Would you mind clarifying something for me here please, @kagey? The above is your default position, correct? I ask because I also read you advocating that nothing is mandatory, so there might be times/games/opponents where an expanded 3bet range -- potentially even more than this -- is best.

    Just clarifying...
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Would you mind clarifying something for me here please, @kagey? The above is your default position, correct? I ask because I also read you advocating that nothing is mandatory, so there might be times/games/opponents where an expanded 3bet range -- potentially even more than this -- is best.

    Just clarifying...

    yeah - i start with a default set of ranges - and I deviate as I gain more info on my opponents and how the table plays
    but even within my ranges - since I play a mixed strategy - I don't always do the same thing with the same hand in the same position.

    I will sometimes put 99 or 88 in my 3- or 4-bet range, but it's unlikely that I'll have it when I first sit down at a new table full of unknowns.
    hope this clarifies...
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    Would you mind clarifying something for me here please, @kagey? The above is your default position, correct? I ask because I also read you advocating that nothing is mandatory, so there might be times/games/opponents where an expanded 3bet range -- potentially even more than this -- is best.

    Just clarifying...

    yeah - i start with a default set of ranges - and I deviate as I gain more info on my opponents and how the table plays
    but even within my ranges - since I play a mixed strategy - I don't always do the same thing with the same hand in the same position.

    I will sometimes put 99 or 88 in my 3- or 4-bet range, but it's unlikely that I'll have it when I first sit down at a new table full of unknowns.
    hope this clarifies...

    Yup. That's what I figured, but I didn't want to be presumptuous.

    Thank you!!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file