27 replies to this topic

[slt1der]

I misplaced the stats on the villain but this is the 2nd time he 3-bet me pf in a very short period of time.


Full Tilt Poker $0.10/$0.25 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BTN: $29.05
SB: $25.10
BB: $54.90
UTG: $25.00
Hero (MP): $20.00
CO: $31.45

Pre Flop: ($0.35) Hero is MP with 6 6
1 fold, Hero raises to $0.85, CO raises to $2.75, 3 folds, Hero calls $1.90

Flop: ($5.85) 7 J Q (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks

Turn: ($5.85) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks

River: ($5.85) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks


Does anyone feel a turn bet would give us value? What really concerned me was he 3-bet me preflop and then checked on the flop. Would that appear as a check for value in later streets?

[BaseJester]

Does anyone feel a turn bet would give us value?

Yes.

What really concerned me was he 3-bet me preflop and then checked on the flop. Would that appear as a check for value in later streets?

It would appear to me like he was eskeerd of all those clubs.

[SCS]

Reload to 100bbs.

Fold preflop. You don't have the implied odds to play 66 oop in a 3bet pot. Bet $5 on turn.

[Snamuh]

Fold preflop 100% of the time.

Lead turn strong.

[NoBBiR]

Reload to 100bbs.

Fold preflop. You don't have the implied odds to play 66 oop in a 3bet pot. Bet $5 on turn.

Reload to 100bbs.

Fold preflop. You don't have the implied odds to play 66 oop in a 3bet pot. Bet $5 on turn.

Reload to 100bbs.

Fold preflop. You don't have the implied odds to play 66 oop in a 3bet pot. Bet $5 on turn.

[pokerinc]

some quoting combination of the posters above me.

[BaseJester]

I don't think the preflop call is particularly bad. (A fold is probably better, though.) It doesn't quite work as a strictly set-mining play, but if you can use your Cobalt-sense to know when your unimproved pair is good it can be profitable.

[NoBBiR]

I don't think the preflop call is particularly bad. (A fold is probably better, though.) It doesn't quite work as a strictly set-mining play, but if you can use your Cobalt-sense to know when your unimproved pair is good it can be profitable.

If we had a full buyin it would be a lot better

[Snamuh]

I don't think the preflop call is particularly bad. (A fold is probably better, though.) It doesn't quite work as a strictly set-mining play, but if you can use your Cobalt-sense to know when your unimproved pair is good it can be profitable.

With our stack size and being OOP, I highly disagree.

[BaseJester]

With our stack size and being OOP, I highly disagree.

Now's the part where I ask you to quantify how big a mistake it is and you ignore me.

Just considering the set mining, we're getting a best-case implied odds of 10.7 : 1. I think this is about a 20 cent mistake.

Maybe we don't have any Cobalt-sense?

[Snamuh]

Now's the part where I ask you to quantify how big a mistake it is and you ignore me.

Just considering the set mining, we're getting a best-case implied odds of 10.7 : 1. I think this is about a 20 cent mistake.

Maybe we don't have any Cobalt-sense?

You can't just say "We have implied odds" + "we'll win othertimes without hitting the set."

Once you start continuing without hitting a set, you are no longer set mining.

Additionally, even if you strictly set mine here, you are definitely not going to get paid off nearly enough, ESPECIALLY being OOP. Consider that even if you know that he has KK/AA 100% of the time, you will still not get paid off everytime you hit a set, because there will be a lot of action killing boards. And if you don't believe me, consider this board here as an example! OP hits set on the turn, has no idea what to do, and doesn't get any value out of it.

Also, what flops are you going to be continuing on without a set? Flops like 542??? Note that the logic that makes set-mining favorable (tight preflop 3betting range) is counterintuitive to continuing on any flop that you DON'T hit a set (his narrow range has you smoked on a flop like this and paying off even one bet changes your preflop implied odds drastically). Additionally, good luck playing 66 OOP in a 3bet pot with "Cobalt-sense", whatever that means. Sounds more like FPS than anything else because more often than not, you are going to just put your opponent on AK and pay off bets that you should fold to.

It's not even close. Fold preflop. There's nothing to debate. A monster leak of countless uNL and SSNL players is overestimating implied odds while set-mining (and then deviating from their set-mining plan by playing on deceivingly favorable-looking flops).

[BaseJester]

You can't just say "We have implied odds" + "we'll win othertimes without hitting the set."

Wow, good thing I didn't say that. Is there a particular reason you strip out the qualifiers and quote something I didn't say?

Once you start continuing without hitting a set, you are no longer set mining.

That's why I was careful to make the distinction.

Additionally, even if you strictly set mine here, you are definitely not going to get paid off nearly enough, ESPECIALLY being OOP. Consider that even if you know that he has KK/AA 100% of the time, you will still not get paid off everytime you hit a set, because there will be a lot of action killing boards.

Agreed. We clearly need better than 9:1 for these reasons.

And if you don't believe me, consider this board here as an example! OP hits set on the turn, has no idea what to do, and doesn't get any value out of it.

He's making a much bigger mistake on the turn than he did preflop, imho. That's my whole point.

Also, what flops are you going to be continuing on without a set? Flops like 542??? Note that the logic that makes set-mining favorable (tight preflop 3betting range) is counterintuitive to continuing on any flop that you DON'T hit a set (his narrow range has you smoked on a flop like this and paying off even one bet changes your preflop implied odds drastically).


Additionally, good luck playing 66 OOP in a 3bet pot with "Cobalt-sense", whatever that means. Sounds more like FPS than anything else because more often than not, you are going to just put your opponent on AK and pay off bets that you should fold to.

An example of Cobalt Sense

You'll notice that I'm still arguing that the preflop call is a small mistake in both threads, but I'm getting argument from the other end of the spectrum (i.e., from people saying that it's significantly profitable) in that thread. It's not exactly the same, of course, due to a third player. We're talking about similar issues, though.

It's not even close. Fold preflop.

What's that mean? Is it a 75 cent mistake?

You're correctly noting that we can't count on getting all of the stack every time when we hit a set. We have to get something back for that, though. Sometimes our pair is good or we can get him off his hand. It's overly pessimistic to think we have all of these things working against us:

• We have little chance to make an overpair fold.
• We have little chance to win his stack when we hit.
• We have little equity when when we don't make a set.

All of those can't be absolutely and simultaneously true. It's a question of degree.

[Snamuh]

The reason I put it in quotations is because I wanted to separate it from the rest of my chat as if you were saying it. You essentially DID say that when you said "It doesn't quite work as a strictly set-mining play, but if you can use your Cobalt-sense to know when your unimproved pair is good it can be profitable."

The Cobalt hand can't really be compared. He's playing against a LAG in a more aggressive game.

I'm confused at why you feel the need to discuss it beyond the fact that it's a mistake. The degree of the -EV doesn't matter so much as the fact that you understand that it's a -EV call. I also believe that the EV isn't particularly measureable. You just have to know that it's a mistake, and avoid making the mistake in the future. It's a large, leaky mistake to be calling in spots like this, moreso than just this hand, but because OOP has a misconstrued view of implied odds and position.

Additionally I think it's worth noting 2 things. First, OP didn't really have much for reads on villain, making it even less desirable to be calling 3bets light (especially OOP) for the sole fact that you really have no idea how to gauge villain's range. Second, OP slightly speculated that villain 3bet him twice in a short period of time. That doesn't mean a whole lot but if OP interpreted it as being aggressive and fairly loose, it is even worse to call a hand like 66 OOP just because the hand is so incredibly difficult to play.

As far as Cobalt sense, most of the posters in this forum that are playing micro stakes would do better to not put too much into those kind of hands and just focus on playing a solid game. I believe it's the recent Eric Liu CR video that mentions players not to put too much stock into those "outlier hands" where people really need to make thin calldowns, because they're so rare and don't greatly impact your winrate.

[BaseJester]

The reason I put it in quotations is because I wanted to separate it from the rest of my chat as if you were saying it.

You can't just say, "I'm a huge egotistical wanker."

Wow, that is kind of fun. I like these ground rules.

You essentially DID say that when you said "It doesn't quite work as a strictly set-mining play, but if you can use your Cobalt-sense to know when your unimproved pair is good it can be profitable."

The Cobalt hand can't really be compared. He's playing against a LAG in a more aggressive game.

If I have to guess, and I do have to guess, this opponent is also a LAG.

but this is the 2nd time he 3-bet me pf in a very short period of time.

I'm confused at why you feel the need to discuss it beyond the fact that it's a mistake. The degree of the -EV doesn't matter so much as the fact that you understand that it's a -EV call.

Because if it's somewhat close, then we can be pushed over the edge to a call by some small factor, like a tell or a slightly smaller raise.

I also believe that the EV isn't particularly measureable. You just have to know that it's a mistake, and avoid making the mistake in the future. It's a large, leaky mistake to be calling in spots like this, . . .

This makes no damn sense. You can't think it's both unmeasureable and large.

[SCS]

Are you going to argue the most trivial points on the forums now as part of some ridiculous internet feud? Seems pointless to get worked up over one poster.

[AimHigher]

Are you going to argue the most trivial points on the forums now as part of some ridiculous internet feud? Seems pointless to get worked up over one poster.

Especially when they could be answering my endless number of strat questions instead of arguing amongst themselves.

[Snamuh]

You can't just say, "I'm a huge egotistical wanker."

Wow, that is kind of fun. I like these ground rules.
If I have to guess, and I do have to guess, this opponent is also a LAG.
Because if it's somewhat close, then we can be pushed over the edge to a call by some small factor, like a tell or a slightly smaller raise.

This makes no damn sense. You can't think it's both unmeasureable and large.

How does this not make sense? You can recognize it as a large mistake but unless you are going to be analyzing how OP and the villain react to a million different flops, you have no way of determining how large of a mistake the preflop call is going to be.

[Snamuh]

Are you going to argue the most trivial points on the forums now as part of some ridiculous internet feud? Seems pointless to get worked up over one poster.

That's my point. This should be an extremely trivial preflop fold and there's no reason it should even be debated.

[BaseJester]

How does this not make sense? You can recognize it as a large mistake but unless you are going to be analyzing how OP and the villain react to a million different flops, you have no way of determining how large of a mistake the preflop call is going to be.

So, it might be small?

[Snamuh]

So, it might be small?

Define small????? You estimated 0.75/hand at one point. That's 3 BB and is fairly substantial to one's winrate if you are calling everytime you are in this situation.

Regardless, you continue to argue over the dumbest points ever. If it's a -EV play, why even be debating it? Does the magnitude even matter?