[5NL] 3bet pot, 3 way to flop. To cbet or not to cbet?

[Cobra_1878]

SB - 30/17/10 (3bet) through 192 hands. Fold to 3bet 55%, 6/11. Fold to cbet 60%, 9/15.

Villain had 3bet with QQ and had also just called 3bets with QQ OOP. Had a note that villain had also played KK passively, checking A high flop, 1/2 PSB on turn, checking river.

MP - 26/20 through 172 hands, fold to 3bet 46%, 6/13. Fold to cbet 44%, 4/9.

Had seen villain 4bet twice previously with KK+. He had also called 3bets OOP with AQo & QTo.

PokerStars - $0.05 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: $3.78
SB: $12.50
Hero (BB): $6.31
UTG: $9.14
MP: $20.35
CO: $4.44

SB posts SB $0.02, Hero posts BB $0.05

Pre Flop: (pot: $0.07) Hero has A K

fold, MP raises to $0.15, CO calls $0.15, fold, SB calls $0.13, Hero raises to $0.90, MP calls $0.75, fold, SB calls $0.75

Flop: ($2.85, 3 players) 5 4 5
SB checks, Hero ???

I know MP is capable of calling 3bets with marginal/weak hands OOP so his range is probably even wider IP.

I don't think SB has to have that good of a hand to call the 3bet pre either given that MP calls my 3bet before him. The thing I was worried about was that he is a passive player and had previously called 3bets OOP with big hands. He could quite easily c/c this flop with JJ/QQ.

I think if I bet I can fold out AT+ no spade hands and all small/medium pairs. Hands like KQ/QJ/KJ/JT all also fold I think. Although both villain's don't seem to like folding to cbets so I'm not really sure.

Cbet or give up on hand?

[rpm]

i probably just C/F as we're going to get peeled pretty often 3-way on this flop and i don't particularly want to fire further barrels without knowing these guys can fold

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah. If you were much deeper, I'd suggest a c/c and re-evaluate, but at this point, if you're putting any more chips in this pot, you're putting them all in.

Which brings up my original thought:
How are you so dominated by 3 stacks at a 6-max table?
Is the max buy in 200bb?
If so, why do you have less than 200bb in your stack?
If not, why have you chosen to table-select this table where you're dominated?

You have plenty of hands on these Villains, so if you're sitting here because they're major fish, then you should have no trouble folding marginal spots because you know that you're banking on these fish in better spots that occur all the time.

EDIT:

I think if I bet I can fold out AT+ no spade hands and all small/medium pairs. Hands like KQ/QJ/KJ/JT all also fold I think. Although both villain's don't seem to like folding to cbets so I'm not really sure.

Cbet or give up on hand?

...so you do the math for fold equity if you and see whether it's +EV or not.

[Cobra_1878]

Yeah. If you were much deeper, I'd suggest a c/c and re-evaluate, but at this point, if you're putting any more chips in this pot, you're putting them all in.

Which brings up my original thought:
How are you so dominated by 3 stacks at a 6-max table? - I don't know. Max BI is 250bb
Is the max buy in 200bb?
If so, why do you have less than 200bb in your stack? - It's 5NL. If I BI for $10-12.50 I might as well be playing 10NL?
If not, why have you chosen to table-select this table where you're dominated? - I had been at the table for a while and was happy with how things were going. Plenty of big stacks = plenty of monies to win!

You have plenty of hands on these Villains, so if you're sitting here because they're major fish, then you should have no trouble folding marginal spots because you know that you're banking on these fish in better spots that occur all the time.

EDIT:


...so you do the math for fold equity if you and see whether it's +EV or not.

.

[daviddem]

I don't see anything wrong with buying in for 100bb on stars where max buy-in is 250bb. Deep stacked poker is a different game that you may or may not want to play, your choice.

Actually I prefer FTP's formula which separates the tables by stack size. I absolutely hate the stars tables where half of the players buy in for the tiny minimum.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You should always sit down with the max buy in at whatever stakes you're playing. It is no good that your opponents have big stacks when your own stack is too small to win their stack. It is always +EV to have more chips in front of you.

Your idea that you might as well be playing higher stakes if you have a deeper stack is not a good analogy. The blinds determine the initial dead money in the pot, which sets the base-line of bet sizing to follow. Ultimately the blinds determine the final pot size.

YES, there are going to be more options as far as 4-betting and 5-betting PRE and b/r on multiple streets. This means you have more opportunities to make choices. You should relish these opportunities because your opponents have more chances to make mistakes against you.

Would you stop playing and switch tables if you won up to a 250bb stack? No, you would stay because now your implied odds hands have much greater value.

Finally, and with much respect, it sounds like you're playing scared money.

[daviddem]

^^ disagree. Not everyone is comfortable (or rolled for) playing deep stacked poker especially when still learning standard 100b stacks. This is particularly true if the big stacks have position on you. Matter of fact, it'd be a really bad idea to sit with 250bb at a table where two players on your left have 250bb and two players on your right have 100b.

As I said, many things change in the game with stacks this deep.

edit: agree that 5nl with 200b stacks is not the same as 10nl with 100b stacks though

[MadMojoMonkey]

Matter of fact, it'd be a really bad idea to sit with 250bb at a table where two players on your left have 250bb and two players on your right have 100b.

Stack size is only a preliminary tell on playing style. The style of player sitting behind the stack is far more relevant than the actual stack size in determining profitability of a seat. After all, anyone can catch a lucky river card and suddenly have a fat stack. That doesn't suddenly make them a better player.

How can it be +EV to sit with fewer chips? You just take a pass on the implied odds you can use to your advantage. Yes, there are more moves available to you, so why are you afraid of them? Back to scared money. If you don't want to sit with the max buy in, then find a table that has the max buy in that you are comfortable with. Otherwise you're just missing opportunities to learn to beat deep stack poker.

[daviddem]

If I am not mistaken you can always sit with 250bb on stars, there are no tables where the limit is 100bb?

I've never said that big stack equals good player. I am saying that in general it is preferable to have big stacks on your right and smaller ones on your left, particularly in deep stack games where position matters even more. I am also saying that you have to relearn automatisms that you acquired learning to play with 100bb. Your implied odds are larger, so the preflop value of speculative hands increases vs the usual big pairs and AK. It becomes more valuable to play or 3b hands like pocket pairs and SC's preflop, or even to play unsuited connectors vs a raise. The value of your draws to the nuts increases post flop. The value of non nut hands decreases. Your reverse implied odds also get much worse. Bluffs are scarier because of the large amount of money behind. Variance increases. In short, it's a different game that you may or may not be comfortable with, and that I would not recommend playing if you are not fully confident with your 100bb game. There may be more moves available to you, but you have to know how to use them correctly and they are also available to your villains.

I am certainly not saying I will sit out if I win a stack and I have two passive donks with 200bb on my right. But I will if I have two decent or aggro players with 200bb on my left and no other reason to stay.

[Pascal]

You should always sit down with the max buy in at whatever stakes you're playing. It is no good that your opponents have big stacks when your own stack is too small to win their stack. It is always +EV to have more chips in front of you.

Your idea that you might as well be playing higher stakes if you have a deeper stack is not a good analogy. The blinds determine the initial dead money in the pot, which sets the base-line of bet sizing to follow. Ultimately the blinds determine the final pot size.

YES, there are going to be more options as far as 4-betting and 5-betting PRE and b/r on multiple streets. This means you have more opportunities to make choices. You should relish these opportunities because your opponents have more chances to make mistakes against you.

Would you stop playing and switch tables if you won up to a 250bb stack? No, you would stay because now your implied odds hands have much greater value.

Finally, and with much respect, it sounds like you're playing scared money.

Not true. Some people aren't comfortable playing deepstack poker - it's a very different game. Taking the same lines you take with 100bb when you have 250bb effective in a 3 way pot is going to cause you to get absolutely owned. Given it's 5NL and OP is trying to learn and improve, unless he ONLY wants to play with 250bb he shouldn't be buying in with 250bb+. Your edge can feasibly decrease playing 250bb instead of 100bb if you don't adjust. Saying it is "always" +EV to have more chips in front of you is not true. Another example - if you're in a game where you don't have an edge, you want to play with as few bb as possible.

[daviddem]

If you need more convincing, you just have to look at how tough it can be for tournament players who are used to short stack play to transition to 100bb cash games, even at the professional level.

The deeper the stacks are, the more complex the game is.

[Pelion]

Chosing to buy in for 100bbs is not the same as scared money. I would go as far as to say it is the opposite. You are chosing to play for an amount of money you are NOT scared to lose, whereas buying in for the full amount may make you start playing scared.

I think it is totally fine to buy in for 100bbs, especially if you are fairly new to the game and getting used to postflop decision making. 100bb poker also has a smaller BR requirement than 250bb poker, since you can lose 2.5x as much for the same bad beat, even if you have a huge edge.

On to the hand, I c/f here without too much thought. As you said, almost all of the hands that fold to a bet are hands you beat anyway. They are also less likely to bet at weakness since you have a second player who may be calling with a medium pair. There are a lot of ways to be behind and not many of those hands are folding.

[agnesamurphy]

Another example - if you're in a game where you don't have an edge, you want to play with as few bb as possible.

I don't understand. If you don't have the edge, don't you want as large a stack as possible? With fewer BB, then aren't you forced to only play the nuts, since those with the edge could play your short stack and bully you when you don't have it? Then, by only playing the nuts, you're only going to get action from other nut hands and either lose it all or double up with a cooler.

[Pascal]

The smaller the stacks, the lower the edge. Mistakes are amplified when you have bigger stacks. Playing push/fold perfectly v someone playing with basic knowledge, you'll still have no where near as big an edge as each mistake may average 2 or 3bb mistakes rather than 50 or 100bb mistakes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In short, it's a different game that you may or may not be comfortable with, and that I would not recommend playing if you are not fully confident with your 100bb game.

Yeah, and you shouldn't learn a 100bb game until you've mastered the 50bb game, and you shouldn't learn the 50bb game until you've mastered the 25bb game... until... until you can master playing with a one chip stack.

There may be more moves available to you, but you have to know how to use them correctly and they are also available to your villains.

So why would you be scared to learn them? Why would the Villains be any less exploitable than any other game you learn? Why are you disguising the scared money issue by using phrases like "not comfortable with" and "not fully confident"?

Not true. Some people aren't comfortable playing deepstack poker - it's a very different game. Taking the same lines you take with 100bb when you have 250bb effective in a 3 way pot is going to cause you to get absolutely owned.

Who's advocating playing a thoughtless game that doesn't adjust to stack sizes and table conditions?

Given it's 5NL and OP is trying to learn and improve, unless he ONLY wants to play with 250bb he shouldn't be buying in with 250bb+. Your edge can feasibly decrease playing 250bb instead of 100bb if you don't adjust.

What? So now he ONLY wants to play a 100bb stack? Ludicrous! Madness, I say! Again, who ever suggested not adjusting? And why do you guys seem to think adjusting your play is some kind of death ray?

Saying it is "always" +EV to have more chips in front of you is not true. Another example - if you're in a game where you don't have an edge, you want to play with as few bb as possible.

OK, now you're just being silly. If you're in a game where you don't have an edge, you shouldn't be playing at all.

I haven't heard one reason to play a smaller than max stack yet that isn't hypothetical or based on being too scared or unable to adjust your play to suit the conditions.

If you need more convincing, you just have to look at how tough it can be for tournament players who are used to short stack play to transition to 100bb cash games, even at the professional level.

The deeper the stacks are, the more complex the game is.

Yes, and learning to adjust to the complexity of the game is what makes it a fun process. It's not like the rules changed. The exact same math applies, you just have slightly different numbers in the implied odds equation. The adjustments are really quite minor.
We're talking about 5NL here, not jumping from the top of the field in one game to the top of the field in another game. That's just a -EV decision to choose to learn the adjustments against the sickest pros around.

[rpm]

You should always sit down with the max buy in at whatever stakes you're playing.

untrue. you should always choose the buy-in with the maximum EV. if i go to my local game and there is one seat to the direct right of two guys sitting with 300bb who i know both play professionally and are very good aggressive players but there are 5 fish to the right of this seat sitting on between 60-90bb, which buy-in amount do you think is best: 100bb, 150bb, 300bb?

edit: ok seems this one's been done into the groundand MMM doesn't want to listen. i agree with your points MMM about the benefits of learning different stack sizes etc. but saying you always want to have the max amount of $ in front of you regardless of table conditions is plain wrong (if your goal is strictly EV maximisation - which seems to be where we differ ie learning opportunities/experience vs strict EV maximisation in the present) and people have shown you numerous examples of why this is the case

also @ daviddem, the non-discriminatory 50-250bb buyin thing is only for nanostakes i think. certainly 10nl and maybe 5nl have designated 100bb max and 250bb max buy-in tables

[rpm]

MMM i don't think you properly understand the term "scared money"

[surviva316]

If your preflop sizing was meant to exploit the fact that they are loose players who will call whatever amount with a static range, then good on you. This is pretty big to be your standard, though, and I'm guessing MP will be less likely to call 6x raise with AT than he would a more standard size (~.70).

As for flop, just c/f. You're not going to get a ton of folds to a single bet, and getting yourself into a multi-street bluff situation against a couple of cally players who have a ton of overpairs in their range is just a disaster.

Besides, you have great showdown against any hand that might fold to a bet, and you can get to showdown cheap sometimes here.

[HarleyGuy13]

After reading this I think somebody is convinced they've learned all they can about poker. Just an observation. There are a lot of people on here I am not familiar with being it's been a long time. I need to catch up on the dynamics.

[daviddem]

I don't understand. If you don't have the edge, don't you want as large a stack as possible? With fewer BB, then aren't you forced to only play the nuts, since those with the edge could play your short stack and bully you when you don't have it? Then, by only playing the nuts, you're only going to get action from other nut hands and either lose it all or double up with a cooler.

No that's the opposite. Would you call an all in for your entire bankroll without the nuts? The larger the stacks, the less you want to get it in without a nutty hand.

There is also much more opportunity for bluffing/bullying with large amounts of money left in the stacks. Say you and unknown villain have 50bb. You have AK OTB. Villain in MP raises 3x, you 3b 10x, he calls. Flop comes A72r. Pot is 21.5bb. Villain checks, you bet 12bb, villain shoves 40bb. The pot is 73.5bb and you have 28bb behind. No brainer call as you have excellent 27.5% pot odds to call and he could easily be doing that with a worse A.

Now take the same scenario with 150bb stacks. When villain check/shoves, he shoves 140bb this time. Now your pot odds are a much worse 42.5% and you have to start wondering:
a) does he have a set or two pairs?
b) could he be a donk who does that with a worse A?
c) are you being bluffed/bullied?
d) is it b) and c) more than 40ish% of the time?

Finally, I have nothing against learning a new game, but then I will start at the lowest stakes to get used to it. I am not going to sit at a 10nl PLO table with $25 just because I am rolled for it and the probability calculations are similar to NLHE. If I want to learn PLO, I will start at 2nl with 100bb (and yes, maybe less in the very beginning).

If you're in a game where you don't have an edge, you shouldn't be playing at all.

What kind of bullshit is this? You think you had an edge the first time you sat at a poker table? refer to Harley's signature above.

[MadMojoMonkey]

After reading this I think somebody is convinced they've learned all they can about poker. Just an observation.

Not sure who this is directed at, but I think it could be me, so I'll own it.

I'm not saying I know all there is to know about poker, I'm saying these arguments like, "If you have more chips it will be harder." are irrelevant to me... as though the notion of something being hard matters at all.

Hard or easy is a mindset.

I have explained my point and I find the counter-arguments to be not compelling. I'm not zealously clinging to a point of view. I'm just not swayed by the arguments made thus far.

What kind of bullshit is this? You think you had an edge the first time you sat at a poker table? refer to Harley's signature above.

How many kinds are there? (Sorry, channeling my dad there... speaking of whom,)
The first time I sat at a poker table, I was 6 years old. My edge was immense, as I was being taught by my dad, who was throwing the match to keep it fun for me.

I concede that if you're still learning the fundamentals like using starting ranges, and correctly reading your hand, then you might want to start with a min buy-in at the smallest stakes you can find (preferably play money)... but this is because you should be sitting on scared money, as you obviously are a huge fish who doesn't understand the basics. (Clearly Cobra is not in this category.)

As to the arguments where there's 2 deep-stacked regs on Hero's left and the rest of the table is 100bb stacked uber-fish:
Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster? Yes, the pots with them will make you think more. I think it's called playing poker.

...

I have nothing but respect for all the posters in this thread, so please don't think I'm trolling here.

[daviddem]

As to the arguments where there's 2 deep-stacked regs on Hero's left and the rest of the table is 100bb stacked uber-fish:
Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster?

If it was not clear, let me break it down for you:
1) They are just as likely as you are to pop a monster (you have no card advantage)
2) Supposedly since they are regs, there is no or little skill difference (you have no skill advantage)
3) They have position (you have position disadvantage, and that is a huge one, more so in deep stack games)

It is a well documented fact (Sklansky or Harrington?) that money at a poker table of similarly skilled players tends to flow clockwise, precisely because of the position advantage. So now you have 250bb tending to flow away from you, and only 100bb tending to flow towards you... Anyone with basic table selection skills knows that. Nobody in their right mind wants to sit with a deep stack to the left of uber-tight short stackers and to the right of deep stacked LAG regs, or even aggro-donks.

If you have 100bb fishes on your right, fine. Buy-in for 100bb: you maximize your upside vs the 100bb fishes on which you have position and you minimize your downside vs the 250bb regs who have position on you. It's just common sense unless you are so good that your skill advantage more than makes up for the lack of position (good luck with that).

If you think your skill advantage over the regs compensates being OOP with deep stacks, good for you. It may not be everyone's case though, so as has been explained by everyone in this thread in 10 different ways, it is not good advice to tell people that they should always sit with the max buy-in no matter what.

[rpm]

Not sure who this is directed at, but I think it could be me, so I'll own it.

I'm not saying I know all there is to know about poker, I'm saying these arguments like, "If you have more chips it will be harder." are irrelevant to me... as though the notion of something being hard matters at all.

Hard or easy is a mindset.

I have explained my point and I find the counter-arguments to be not compelling. I'm not zealously clinging to a point of view. I'm just not swayed by the arguments made thus far.


How many kinds are there? (Sorry, channeling my dad there... speaking of whom,)
The first time I sat at a poker table, I was 6 years old. My edge was immense, as I was being taught by my dad, who was throwing the match to keep it fun for me.

I concede that if you're still learning the fundamentals like using starting ranges, and correctly reading your hand, then you might want to start with a min buy-in at the smallest stakes you can find (preferably play money)... but this is because you should be sitting on scared money, as you obviously are a huge fish who doesn't understand the basics. (Clearly Cobra is not in this category.)

As to the arguments where there's 2 deep-stacked regs on Hero's left and the rest of the table is 100bb stacked uber-fish:
Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster? Yes, the pots with them will make you think more. I think it's called playing poker.

...

I have nothing but respect for all the posters in this thread, so please don't think I'm trolling here.

Re your question on sitting to the right of deep competent regs, we want to limit the size of our stack (not our equity) because the deeper we are vs these players, the more EV we are losing. Sure we won't get paid as much on average with our monsters, but that's only a tiny part of playing poker. You've ignored how we are going to lose far less money in most if not all "tough" spots when we are short vs unnecessarily deep vs them. If you can't see how limiting your stack size when playing an opponent who we know we are losing money to long-term has a greater EV than putting every cent you can on the table then this conversation is kind of pointless. Either take our word for it or don't. Or if you understand what's being said but like challenging yourself and don't mind giving up EV to do so then that's fine too. Problem is you seem to be trying to refute what is known as fact, namely the EV of stack size choices

[Pascal]

Hard or easy is a mindset.

Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster? Yes, the pots with them will make you think more. I think it's called playing poker.

Just pulled these bits out and two short replies.

1. An edge isn't a "mindset" - it's a (theoretically) quantifiable win rate based on how good/bad you are. Thinking "I'm good at deepstack poker" doesn't make you good. Edge is increased by learning, theory and experience. At first, you'll lack experience at the very least, and probably the understanding of the theory.

2. It'll also let them exploit you if they are better than you. "Thinking more" won't help as they'll have more experience and a better understanding of the theory.

[Icanhastreebet]

I don't understand? How can you say playing a bigger stack is always better? You realize you need a much larger roll to player 250bb as opposed to 100bb as opposed to 20bb poker right?

Also a specific stack size may be where you expect your opponent to make the most mistakes. If I could play 20bb poker with a tonne of the guys playing midstakes and some high stakes I would happily do so. Would I play 100bb with these guys? No because they have played millions of hands of this stack size and I would certainly be a loser. Would I crush them 20bb because they don't have a clue about 20bb poker? Yes.

Even if I could play as well as these guys 100bb. If I expect them to make a tonne of mistakes with 40bb or 20bb why wouldn't I play these stack sizes?

Saying it is ALWAYS +eV to have more chips in front of you is completely wrong. There are tonnes of situations where you can buy in for different stacks sizes. The most obvious of which is one where you cover the fish on your right but you wouldn't want the super amazing aggro reg on your left to always 3b or 4b your iso's and make your life hell 250bb deep.

edit: Also arguing to put yourself in the above situation to improve is complete nonsense. It's just not a situation you are going to win in because guess what, the guy with the big stack has position on you and guess what way the money flows on a poker table?