Author Topic: Flush draw (too passive ??)  (Read 9397 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

AMRN

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2012, 23:19:37 PM »
Interesting that I"m in a minority of one when it comes to the 3b bet sizing - everyone else seem to think it"s fine...

My point is that by 3betting small, there is no incentive for him to fold, meaning we are guaranteeing his call, and are then going to have to play the rest of the hand out of position against an unknown random. It"s hard enough to play oop against someone when we have reads and known tendencies, but with no prior info, it"s pretty damned awkward.

So, is there really no merit in taking the hand down here and now with a larger 3bet??

George2Loose

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2012, 23:32:07 PM »

Interesting that I"m in a minority of one when it comes to the 3b bet sizing - everyone else seem to think it"s fine...

My point is that by 3betting small, there is no incentive for him to fold, meaning we are guaranteeing his call, and are then going to have to play the rest of the hand out of position against an unknown random. It"s hard enough to play oop against someone when we have reads and known tendencies, but with no prior info, it"s pretty damned awkward.

So, is there really no merit in taking the hand down here and now with a larger 3bet??


Steve if you"re always peeling 3 bets of this sizing from the sb even in pos it"s probably a pretty big leak.

We"re probably 3 betting the bottom of our range here. I see no incentive in trying to take down the pot pre when we"re not really ever gonna be light from the sb unless there"s some sort of history
Follow me on twitter:  gb2loose

George2Loose

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2012, 23:33:27 PM »

I have a few questions@ the "bet flop and turn" crew.

If we fire out on the flop and turn, we leave ourselves a nice 3 quarter ish pot sized river bet to fire off our third barrell.

All but one have not given a plan for the river. What is your plan? Only Marty has said "unload the clip". Just curious that a lot of people have said bluff/semi bluff 2 streets with no advice on the river.

FWIW, I have already said that any bet on the turn would be based on reads/tendencies. If I did bet the turn it would be with the intention of shoving most rivers. What rivers would people who bet flop and turn give up on?


Also think Brendan"s point about 3 betting pre is very valid. I would auto 3 bet here, because I like doing it a lot but the argument for playing a smaller pot OOP against an unknown is fair enough.

Also question for Brian. If there are 15 left, how come you are playing on a full 9 man table?? has there just been 2 (or 3??) exits on the other table?


I mean there are a number of board rivers that I empty the clip. Some I don"t. On this board run out I"d actually give up.
Follow me on twitter:  gb2loose

George2Loose

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2012, 23:36:13 PM »


10k gteed Stars $33, 15 left i have 51 bigs villain just come to the table no hands on him, questions are

1) Is 3 bet too small ? if so how much do you 3 bet here or is flatting an option ?

2) After flop should i lead out here or take the free card after villain has checked ?

I bet 12k into 25k pot on the turn, again too small or would you bet bigger ?



3bet size is fine, flop is pretty decent for your hand so you must bet.

Why did you consider 3 betting a better option than flatting?

Curious about the pro"s and con"s of 3 betting pre, do we all agree 3 betting for value is best against an unknown button raise.


Would rather play the hand OOP but with the lead then flatting. We"re just going to end up c/folding so many flops. I"m 3 bet folding against a random but actually don"t mind 3/5 betting against the right opponent
Follow me on twitter:  gb2loose

Swinebag

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4033
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2012, 23:36:56 PM »

So, is there really no merit in taking the hand down here and now with a larger 3bet??


2.5x is a pretty standard 3 bet size.

what would you suggest?
Quote from: Chipaccrual
Rob, you are a genius.
Quote from: jacklevel06
You are a genius Rob  :D

Erimus

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 943
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2012, 23:40:16 PM »
Was final 2 tables might be wrong about 15 left just from memory, one of my probs is lobby watching got to cut it out, this was probably why I didn"t bet the flop and played it a little too passively.

Regarding the 3 bet, like I said he was new to the table and thought I would take initiative in the hand, but I did wimp out of it on the flop, I did not want to get 50 big blinds in the middle with KQ off, being results orientated I did manage to finish 4th for a decent cash so happy with that.

If I did double barrel flop and turn would prob have to bet the river, and that would be with eyes closed and fingers crossed hoping that K high was good, which I definitely would not be happy with, thanks for all the input.


George2Loose

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2012, 23:50:07 PM »
Don"t understand why you"d want to check the flop but then bet the turn?
Follow me on twitter:  gb2loose

Erimus

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 943
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2012, 00:03:54 AM »

Don"t understand why you"d want to check the flop but then bet the turn?


Got the nickname fossil for a reason lol, thought with villain checking the flop as well, a bet on the turn would take it down if he had total air, but looking back betting the flop makes us look a lot stronger,

George2Loose

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2012, 00:20:15 AM »


Don"t understand why you"d want to check the flop but then bet the turn?


Got the nickname fossil for a reason lol, thought with villain checking the flop as well, a bet on the turn would take it down if he had total air, but looking back betting the flop makes us look a lot stronger,


It"s difficult to see what you"re repping when you check the flop and lead the turn.
Follow me on twitter:  gb2loose

Delboy

  • Silver Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
  • Its not about the Poker
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2012, 01:01:07 AM »


Don"t understand why you"d want to check the flop but then bet the turn?


Got the nickname fossil for a reason lol, thought with villain checking the flop as well, a bet on the turn would take it down if he had total air, but looking back betting the flop makes us look a lot stronger,


if he has total air, there is surely no need to bet?

Once you check flop, you are really only hoping to get a free (or very cheap) draw or to call a bluff on the river, if that is the villain"s tendency.

deanp27

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2012, 08:04:00 AM »



Don"t understand why you"d want to check the flop but then bet the turn?


Got the nickname fossil for a reason lol, thought with villain checking the flop as well, a bet on the turn would take it down if he had total air, but looking back betting the flop makes us look a lot stronger,


It"s difficult to see what you"re repping when you check the flop and lead the turn.


Only a set of tens that makes quads.
By checking back flop you are letting villain pot control all his medium strength hands so he only has to call 2 streets when your hand looks like ace hi. With stacks as they are, you should be betting flop for maximum leverage, especially given the stage of the tournament
Looking forward to making my first day 2

TheSnapper

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2012, 19:26:10 PM »


Also think Brendan"s point about 3 betting pre is very valid. I would auto 3 bet here, because I like doing it a lot but the argument for playing a smaller pot OOP against an unknown is fair enough.



I"m not necessarily making a case for flatting over 3 betting Rob, the thing is though, our 3 bet here is a bluff against some 3 bet calling ranges and for value against others. If villain folds to 3b"s too often then his range for continuing has us crushed and we are not 3 betting for value.

I"m more interested in Brians rationale for choosing the 3b option.




My point is that by 3betting small, there is no incentive for him to fold, meaning we are guaranteeing his call, and are then going to have to play the rest of the hand out of position against an unknown random. It"s hard enough to play oop against someone when we have reads and known tendencies, but with no prior info, it"s pretty damned awkward.

So, is there really no merit in taking the hand down here and now with a larger 3bet??


If you want him to fold are you 3b bluffing? If you are bluffing, why do you think KQs should be part of your 3b bluffing range and do you have a flatting range in this spot?




Would rather play the hand OOP but with the lead then flatting. We"re just going to end up c/folding so many flops. I"m 3 bet folding against a random but actually don"t mind 3/5 betting against the right opponent



Tbh I see some merit in having the lead, but we have to consider other factors too. Depending on the buttons tendencies we may illicit various responses....

He folds, we take it down preflop, this can steal positional advantage and some equity from villain but he seldom folds better hands than ours.

He flats, we have initiative but villain has positional advantage and often a dominating range.

He 4 bets, we fold and burn our equity or we level ourselves.

Of course villain may call with hands that don"t fare well against our holding but then we are not really 3b"ing to have the iniative but to exploit his weak calling range and to maximise the value of our hand.

"Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when, in fact, to be proven wrong should be celebrated, for it elevates someone to a new level of understanding."

noble1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2518
Re: Flush draw (too passive ??)
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2012, 15:01:21 PM »
Quote
is flatting an option ?

suited broadways make far better calling hands when out of position in spots/situations like this imho...

Quote
After flop should i lead out

as played leading out is the better option [have a think about what sort of bet sizing is best for manipulation] if villain 2bets the flop then at this sort of stack size close to the FT i"d 3bet jam, i wouldn"t expect a huge amount of folds from the villain BUT you wil get some folds from some random bluffs or some tight spewy nits with JJ maybe even QQ might find a fold :)  u still have around 40% equity versus villains get it in flop range of sets and over pairs on this texture.. with a double up @ this stage u can coast to the FT and beyond ;D

if u call pre and this sort of low co-ordinated ish texture flops [or 864ccx for example etc] because many of a player will open a wide range from late position if u check and villain checks behind its not a flop texture that gets slowplayed very often, over pairs,two pair or a set will lead out as from his point of view this should be hitting a lot of your calling range in the BB.. [making a assumption here that down to the last 15 in a $30 MTT that villain is at least competent :)]
i suppose we are in the capped range theory area, check raise turn if villain bets out on most turn cards as he will very seldom have anything stronger than one pair and u can rep a missed check raise on the flop, this should be +ev imo and even if villain calls the re-raise a large river bet will get a hell of a lot of folds..

if we have to have a 3bet range oop versus a unknown opening from the button i think i"d prefer to be polarised....

all other scenarios i"ll leave out :) or it will be another essay...  :o  nice post btw, plenty of things to take/discuss from it...