I'm not a fan of three-betting early with TT, but that's more my style rather than dogmatism on my part. If I'm 8-tabling (which I was), I tend to stay in my comfort zone.
I don't use the overshove back with QQ in the CO because (a) being in the CO, my range is narrower -- therefore opponent's reraise is a narrower range, and (b) a reason I don't really want to go into, but I do have a reason that relates to the differences between AK and QQ.
However, I think my flat call is wrong, and I think I should 4-bet to something like $48, folding to a reraise.
Of course, this means that I sometimes have to reraise to $48 with AK, AA and KK, and sometimes have to shove with those hands, varying the percentages according to my holding to a degree I would obviously rather not reveal. I could include QQ in this reshove mix, I suppose, but it would be a lower percentage than the other three holdings.
Yeah, I should definitely have three-bet the TT preflop in that other hand, but that small stack in the blind usually either shoves or folds. I played that hand very badly, I admit.
On the first had .. yep, a mini raise there is not high enough. Or, if I do put in a miniraise, and the betting runs as it does, the odds marginally make a fold better, I think.
As you know, I have often argued that "making sure you do not give opponent implied odds" does not necessitate a big bet. You can also put in a small bet and then decline to pay opponent off if he hits (which is another way of declining to give him implied odds). But here I've given the implied odds, AND then I've paid him off. Not good. A bigger raise doesn't necessarily shout "I have a set" either.
But, what's the chance of Chiren having a flush draw? Not big (my guess, 1 in 7). And, if he has the flush draw, how often does he hit? (2 in 9). So this sequence only occurs about 3% of the time. Against AK (a more likely holding of his), a smaller reraise is fine. Against most other hands, it doesn't make any difference how much I reraise, because either he will fold or he has KK. So, there's backwards narrative at play here a bit. If he turns out to have AK (let's say it's a TV poker show and the commentator can see it) and I put in a pot reraise, then the commentator goes "why is he reraising so big, what hand can he be scared of? He's almost certainly well ahead well behind".
This is a very difficult area when judging raise sizes. Sometimes you are more likely to be WAWB, but there's a significant minority chance that you should make opponent pay for a draw. If it's a WAWB situation, you want to put in a small raise (or even flat call), whereas if it's a drawing situation, you want to put in a bigger raise.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-29 11:03 pm (UTC)I'm not a fan of three-betting early with TT, but that's more my style rather than dogmatism on my part. If I'm 8-tabling (which I was), I tend to stay in my comfort zone.
I don't use the overshove back with QQ in the CO because (a) being in the CO, my range is narrower -- therefore opponent's reraise is a narrower range, and (b) a reason I don't really want to go into, but I do have a reason that relates to the differences between AK and QQ.
However, I think my flat call is wrong, and I think I should 4-bet to something like $48, folding to a reraise.
Of course, this means that I sometimes have to reraise to $48 with AK, AA and KK, and sometimes have to shove with those hands, varying the percentages according to my holding to a degree I would obviously rather not reveal. I could include QQ in this reshove mix, I suppose, but it would be a lower percentage than the other three holdings.
Yeah, I should definitely have three-bet the TT preflop in that other hand, but that small stack in the blind usually either shoves or folds. I played that hand very badly, I admit.
On the first had .. yep, a mini raise there is not high enough. Or, if I do put in a miniraise, and the betting runs as it does, the odds marginally make a fold better, I think.
As you know, I have often argued that "making sure you do not give opponent implied odds" does not necessitate a big bet. You can also put in a small bet and then decline to pay opponent off if he hits (which is another way of declining to give him implied odds). But here I've given the implied odds, AND then I've paid him off. Not good. A bigger raise doesn't necessarily shout "I have a set" either.
But, what's the chance of Chiren having a flush draw? Not big (my guess, 1 in 7). And, if he has the flush draw, how often does he hit? (2 in 9). So this sequence only occurs about 3% of the time. Against AK (a more likely holding of his), a smaller reraise is fine. Against most other hands, it doesn't make any difference how much I reraise, because either he will fold or he has KK. So, there's backwards narrative at play here a bit. If he turns out to have AK (let's say it's a TV poker show and the commentator can see it) and I put in a pot reraise, then the commentator goes "why is he reraising so big, what hand can he be scared of? He's almost certainly well ahead well behind".
This is a very difficult area when judging raise sizes. Sometimes you are more likely to be WAWB, but there's a significant minority chance that you should make opponent pay for a draw. If it's a WAWB situation, you want to put in a small raise (or even flat call), whereas if it's a drawing situation, you want to put in a bigger raise.