Aces facing decisions post flop

[tonyj444]

I don"t see why it"s such a stretch for v2 to have 78s, 89s and T8s in his range here.  They"re all pretty standard call pre for the initial raiser (since v1 is bad, v2 has position and a playable hand - plus we"re plenty deep enough) and then when hero 3bets here, his range is prob ultra-strong (QQ+, AK+ ??) which boosts v2"s implied odds and that"s what SC"s are for.  I"m sure he wouldn"t be over the moon about getting 8bbs in pre with these hands but I think with these hands pre for each of v2"s decisions calling is better than folding.

[TheSnapper]

I don"t see why it"s such a stretch for v2 to have 78s, 89s and T8s in his range here.  They"re all pretty standard call pre for the initial raiser (since v1 is bad, v2 has position and a playable hand - plus we"re plenty deep enough) and then when hero 3bets here, his range is prob ultra-strong (QQ+, AK+ ??) which boosts v2"s implied odds and that"s what SC"s are for.  I"m sure he wouldn"t be over the moon about getting 8bbs in pre with these hands but I think with these hands pre for each of v2"s decisions calling is better than folding.

Decent point but possibly results based.

[tonyj444]

Not results based as I posted this before realising there was a part 2.  Also, I"ve managed to leave out the SC he actually did have.  Mainly as a response to the earlier post saying "Villain 2 should never have an 8 or JJ but somehow, it looks like he might".  I was just trying to show that he can definitely have an 8 here - I agree that JJ should be less likely given description of v1

[TheSnapper]

Not results based as I posted this before realising there was a part 2.  Also, I"ve managed to leave out the SC he actually did have.  Mainly as a response to the earlier post saying "Villain 2 should never have an 8 or JJ but somehow, it looks like he might".  I was just trying to show that he can definitely have an 8 here - I agree that JJ should be less likely given description of v1

Fair enough though I did state "possibly results based", the good point bit stands wp nice post.

[AAroddersAA]

On my phone atm so can"t do proper response SC are not for implied odds in this spot and we are not plenty deep enough we are not deep enough. Will do a better response later.

EDIT

So my thoughts on why there are so few eights in his range are that preflop the villian starts with 67BB. This is not that deep really but calling the initial raise maybe OK, not at all sure about that though. I don"t like the call of the 3-bet at all though. It"s not about the price it"s about what is going to happen post flop.

From V2"s point of view

Post flop we are going to have a pot of about 7.5K with only 17.5K behind. More often than not we face a c-bet lets say that it"s about 4K. There is 11.5K in the pot, we only have 17.5K we have to shove or fold (unless we flopped the nuts which is really rare). We don"t really have much fold equity against Davids range here usually I don"t think and about 70% of the time we flop nothing anyway. Most of the time we shove we have either a flush draw or OESD type hand, maybe a pair and a draw and this range is in bad shape against AA or KK. We may get a few folds when we shove (AK that missed or AQs maybe) but not enough to make this spot profitable. Looks like a reverse implied odds call.

I would expect given our read on player 2 that he knows that and therefore don"t expect him to have an 8. Given the action though even though he is not supposed to have it he often does.