2/4 9-max (9-handed)

Reads:

MP2 is 15.5 / 7 / 1.8 over 85 hands

Pre-flop: Hero is dealt 8 8 in MP

folds, Hero raises, folds, Hero calls

Flop: (7.5 SB)

10 4 7

Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls

Turn: (6.75 BB)

A

Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero folds

I wouldnt check/raise a preflop 3-bettor who has position on you with just pocket 8's.

What's my alternative?

Should I just donk into him on the flop and fold or call to a raise? I think there's a strong chance that I could get raised off the best hand with that scenario. Check/folding would be silly too.

Check/call down from the flop? That doesn't sound good either.

In a full ring game with a small pot I probably cut this loose on the flop. I know its probably wrong, but thats what I would do.

I like the way you played it.

I also don't mind the line if you want to spend some extra money making sure you are behind, but why are we calling the flop 3 bet getting 12:1? Runner runner straight outs?

Implied odds, maybe make it close... you only need to make up about 6 BB...lol...yeah... I haven't developped the skill of raise/folding yet...

I'm sure AK and AQ appreciate it.


But yea i'm assuming you're calling down if no A or K hits?

Very wrong.

He has overcards around 1/3 of the time here.

I don't mind the c/r, as long as you fold to the 3-bet.

If you plan on calling a 3-bet, I would rather c/c the flop, and either c/c or c/f the turn depending on whether an A or K hit. If no A or K hit the turn or river, I would check the river and fold if he bet.

That was the plan, but I don't think I should be calling the flop 3-bet, as screech says. I'm likely behind and I don't have enough outs to make it worth it to catch up.

Either fold to the flop three-bet or raise the turn.

good luck.

I was thinking about check raising the turn also, as an alternative. Let's say we take that line, and check raise the turn. If he calls, do we fire on the river? Why/Why not?

Do you mean a premeditated, call flop 3-bet and then c/r any turn, representing a set (or an Ace in this case).
Or are you saying, given, it's an Ace, he can Raise turn after his flop 3-bet call goof up.

I'm so nice, I posted twice. :oops:

I'm sure they do. I'm aware (like screech pointed out) that we are up against overcards here alot. I know I'm wrong.

Anyone want to give me a calculation on how much equity I'm passing up here?

Yeah, on the flop, we don't know such a great turn card is coming to check/raise on the turn. That's why I think it's still a fold when he 3-bets.

I would venture to say a substantial amount of equity. If you routinely check/fold hands like this, It's quite possible that some of your opponents could notice and start betting you off more then they should.

Just from a range standpoint, we are up against overcards here more often than overpairs. Since you have good equity versus overcards, and you will be passing up that equity every time, I think it can add up to a pretty penny.

Even if you lose this hand, I think you can get positive metagame expectation since people will be less inclined to play with you postflop.

Playing against straighforward players is the easiest thing in the world as you have no pressure to make any decision whatsoever. Playing against tricky players, even if they are bad, can often pressure you into making a mistake. That's why the Aggression Factor correlates significantly with one's win rate.

Im just curious how you think aggresion factor correlates with win rate? Higher the aggression higher the win rate can't be right?

Win Rate is almost completely dependant on the sum of your opponents' mistakes minus the sum of yours. If you make more mistakes than your opponents, then you will generally be a loser, while if you make less mistakes than your opponents, you will generally be a winner.

Aggression Factor correlates with Win Rate simply because there are many instances where the most optimal move is raising or betting. For example, an aggressor will squeeze extra value out of his hands that a passive player would not.

An aggressive player is also much harder to read. Defining an aggressive player's hand range is considerably harder to define than a passive player's hand range. As a result, the aggressive player's opponents are far more likely to make more mistakes than the passive player's opponents.


More mistakes = more bling bling

As a disclaimer, this assumes that the aggression is applied correctly. If applied incorrectly, an aggressive style can correlate very highly with the process of going busto.