200NL: 3bet pot IP vs unknown

No reads on villain (2 hands and he was 0/0).
MP folds 68% to 3bet. UTG is fish.

The preflop call is scary, so I checked flop, now when he checks turn, check behind? but then what to do on river if villain bets 1/2, 1/3, 3/4, pot if river is non spade?

Comments on any street welcome!

No-Limit Hold'em, $2.00 BB (5 handed) - Hold'em Manager Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

UTG ($157.25)
MP ($301.50)
Hero (Button) ($200)
SB ($439.40)
BB ($282.60)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 3http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif, 3http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif
UTG calls $2, MP bets $9, Hero raises $27, 1 fold, BB calls $25, 2 folds

Flop: ($66) 7http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif, 4http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif, 2http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks

Turn: ($66) Jhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif (2 players)
BB checks, Hero ???

Total pot: $138

i like b/f $35 on the flop.

3-bet pre is pretty gross on a few levels

check down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

3-bet pre is pretty gross on a few levels

---

MP is isolating a lot vs fish. Calling with 33 would only allow us to win a big pot vs fish if we hit a 3, it has no showdown level otherwise. Plus fish is only 75BB deep.
However, 88-99 a call would be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

3-bet pre is pretty gross on a few levels

---

Please elaborate .

why would you blow the fish out and isolate the decent player with one of the worst possible hands to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

why would you blow the fish out and isolate the decent player with one of the worst possible hands to do so?

---

i doubt the intention was to play a postflop pot, but rather pick up 7bbs and move on to the next hand.

i like a b/f $35-40 on the flop also.

b/f advocates, are you advocating that turn our hand into a bluff?

just calling preflop IP has so many merits instead of 3betting.

on flop i vote for a checkdown, AJ+ will prob go for showdown which we beat

Preflop is horrific, this is one of the worst hands to be reraising with. It's a perfect situation to flat behind in position with. Small pairs and suited connectors are much more valuable with a higher SPR ration, you are ruining the value of the hand by reducing the SPR ration with a 3 bet.

As played yeah check it down and hope to hit a 3, or maybe v bet like 1/6th pot if the river isn't an A or K and he checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadstool

Preflop is horrific

---

Yep, I 3bet 72o before 33 here and what's more, I hit the flop!

As played check it down I guess. There's good metagame value in showing down 33 here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadstool

Preflop is horrific, this is one of the worst hands to be reraising with. It's a perfect situation to flat behind in position with. Small pairs and suited connectors are much more valuable with a higher SPR ration, you are ruining the value of the hand by reducing the SPR ration with a 3 bet.

As played yeah check it down and hope to hit a 3, or maybe v bet like 1/6th pot if the river isn't an A or K and he checks.

---

I'm gonna quote this to reiterate because its pretty important how bad 3 betting is pre.

Thanks for the flame guys!
What about if fish is not there and only MP raises? Still call?

probably but it would be a little closer then

PF is sooo bad

why do ppl insist on blowing the fish out of the pot all the time?

edit: lulz I should have read the thread, didn't mean to pile on.

if no fish in the pot ill def consider 3betting depending on some factors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadstool

Preflop is horrific, this is one of the worst hands to be reraising with. It's a perfect situation to flat behind in position with. Small pairs and suited connectors are much more valuable with a higher SPR ration, you are ruining the value of the hand by reducing the SPR ration with a 3 bet.

---

I actually don't totally agree with this. The huge mistake here is blowing the fish out of the pot. In a normal hu scenario vs a tag, calling 33 ip is actually not that profitable in todays games imo, and I wouldn't have a problem with 3-betting it instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

In a normal hu scenario vs a tag, calling 33 ip is actually not that profitable in todays games imo, and I wouldn't have a problem with 3-betting it instead.

---

I think 3-betting 33 ip in a normal hu scenario vs. a tag is horrendous. If you aren't messing around on enough flops to make up for the 3.5bb and to get paid once in awhile when you hit a set then that's a separate problem. Regs don't flat many 3bets oop, so you're turning a hand with potential into a bluff and are forced to guess when he 4bets.

the problem is that 33 is a horrendous hand to "mess around on flops" with. the worst hand to do that with, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

the problem is that 33 is a horrendous hand to "mess around on flops" with. the worst hand to do that with, actually.

---

I think zook meant messing around more with other hands so that you get action with your set of 333's when you hit?..

I think this is an interesting spot, and I'm kind of torn on preflop. I definitely agree with the fish in pot, to flat in this particular hand.
I agree with Renton that we don't have great set hunting odds though CO vs Btn necessarily... depends on image I guess.

Renton is spot on in every single post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

the problem is that 33 is a horrendous hand to "mess around on flops" with. the worst hand to do that with, actually.

---

Your hand matters very little when bluffing the flop ip vs. a frequent cbettor b/c opps with vulnerable hands are rarely going to flat oop. You either have a hand you want to stack off with or a hand you're bluff-raising.

I'm really struggling to understand the rationale for 3betting a small pp ip vs a good tag. We can argue about whether 28+:1 set odds is good enough (I think it is) but you also have to consider that taking small pp's out of your flatting range really weakens your range post-flop.

I would never ALWAYS 3bet a smallish pair IP vs a good tag. But if you have been 3betting a tag often, and expect him to 4-bet bluff you soon, then 3-betting and jamming those pairs is pretty decent even vs his calling range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Your hand matters very little when bluffing the flop ip vs. a frequent cbettor b/c opps with vulnerable hands are rarely going to flat oop. You either have a hand you want to stack off with or a hand you're bluff-raising.

---

So if we call a 3x raise in position, our opponent c-bets 5x and we make it 13x, he's either getting it in on the flop or folding? I don't know about that.

Quote:

---

I'm really struggling to understand the rationale for 3betting a small pp ip vs a good tag. We can argue about whether 28+:1 set odds is good enough (I think it is) but you also have to consider that taking small pp's out of your flatting range really weakens your range post-flop.

---

The rationale is simply that we don't think we can play them profitably by calling. Any hand that we can't call with is a viable 3-bet bluff candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

So if we call a 3x raise in position, our opponent c-bets 5x and we make it 13x, he's either getting it in on the flop or folding? I don't know about that.

---

I think less than 1/2 pot is too small a raise on a lot of boards but I still think that vulnerable hands (i.e. those our bluffraising range has decent equity against) are rarely flatting oop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

The rationale is simply that we don't think we can play them profitably by calling. Any hand that we can't call with is a viable 3-bet bluff candidate.

---

Fair enough. I'm confident enough in the value of position, or arrogant enough perhaps, to think we can play any hand profitably, provided we don't play too many. So of course I'd rather include the ones that make nut hands most often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

but you also have to consider that taking small pp's out of your flatting range really weakens your range post-flop.

---

it actually strengthens your postflop range, not in the equity sense, but in the playability one.

I'm hesitant to say whether it definitely is or definitely isn't profitable to call a 3.5x open bt/co with 33 vs a decent tag. My gut tells me it isn't. However, that would make it weird that 99.9% of great players insta call there, wouldn't it?

Renton, what hands do you think can be played profitably in this situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Renton, what hands do you think can be played profitably in this situation?

---

Really interested in discussing this.

I am always tempted to call raises from BTN vs CO with suited gappers and aces, but I don't think that is profitable at all. I am not even sure if it's profitable to call here with 76s. Well it might be but 3-betting might be even more profitable. Thoughts?

...

i think A2s and 54s are more playable than 22

Yeah but you're going to flop a set more often than a flush/straight and a set is more disguised. This is why I believe small PPs are more profitable than suited connectors/aces.

I've got to say, this thread is tilting me more than any in a long time. Almost all hands are playable, you have position vs. a wide range! I don't see why you would take the hands that make the nuts most often and turn them into bluffs.

I flat a wide range in this spot (all suited aces, connectors, gappers plus some offsuit stuff) and using HEM filters I'm running at 120bb/100 over 2k hands flatting on the btn vs. a co raiser. About 300 of those hands are low pp's and I'm winning 330bb/100 while only flopping sets 1 in 9.25 times. Small sample I know, so I'd love to see other people's numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Almost all hands are playable, you have position vs. a wide range! I don't see why you would take the hands that make the nuts most often and turn them into bluffs.

---

well i already told you that i didn't know for sure if 22 was good or not, so i looked at it all relatively. IMO:

1) cold-calling A2s and 54s is greater expected value in a vacuum than 22

2) cold-calling 72o is -EV in a vacuum

3) there has to be a threshold of profitability somewhere

4) its possible that the smallest pocket pairs are below said threshold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JL

Yeah but you're going to flop a set more often than a flush/straight and a set is more disguised. This is why I believe small PPs are more profitable than suited connectors/aces.

---

in todays games the threat of a big hand is comparable in value to the big hand itself. suited connectors/aces flop hands that can apply pressure a pretty large % of the time. With 22 you have a completely unplayable hand on 88% of flops.

and fwiw i call the small pairs in the situation we're discussing. I generally give the benefit of the doubt when deciding whether to play a hand preflop. I believe the bottom 5 or 10% of most of my preflop ranges for calling/raising/reraising to be spew in a vacuum.