2/4 HU line check

So I just sat down with some guy, I've seen him before so I know he's a reg. Don't know much else. It was s00ted so I threebet. All streets comments welcome.

POKERSTARS GAME #18861338509: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($2/$4) - 2008/07/16 - 10:52:38 (ET)
Table 'Lilaea IV' 2-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: 10 Inchess ($396 in chips)
Seat 2: heybude ($404 in chips)
10 Inchess: posts small blind $2
heybude: posts big blind $4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to heybude [5d 9d]
10 Inchess: raises $8 to $12
heybude: raises $28 to $40
10 Inchess: calls $28
*** FLOP *** [Jc 9s Tc]
heybude: checks (Bet?)
10 Inchess: checks
*** TURN *** [Jc 9s Tc] [3d]
heybude: bets $64 (Check?)
10 Inchess: calls $64
*** RIVER *** [Jc 9s Tc 3d] [4d]
heybude: checks (Bet or Check?)
10 Inchess: bets $152
heybude: (Call???)

any history? Is this hand number 1?

don't 3-bet... it's what you call a "spew"

Originally Posted by Massimo

don't 3-bet... it's what you call a "spew"

that's because we have no read right? the more he opens the button the more I don't mind the RR.

I dont think 3-betting is that bad, or that good. Betting the turn seems pretty bad tho. Your hand doesn't really seem worth protecting that much. Theres very few hands your getting value from and he can have lots of better hands. Plus you almost never check this flop with anything strong. Maybe c/c turn c/f river or just c/f turn.

3-bet is good/std. I usually like to c/f flop + turn and probably vb river, but I think your line is fine. The turn bet shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum.

He's representing a float, Qx or missed clubs. I don't think a (good) reg would ever bluff an unknown here without history. I would hate to call and get owned by QTs.

pretty much everything zangief said

I really dont mind threebetting this hand because it has pretty stable equity against any calling range.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I really dont mind threebetting this hand because it has pretty stable equity against any calling range.

have you done the math on that?

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I really dont mind threebetting this hand because it has pretty stable equity against any calling range.

Cool term

Yeah, we're hoping for a fold, but if we don't get it, then we aren't totally screwed. -EV play in a vacuum though (obv).

Originally Posted by Massimo

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I really dont mind threebetting this hand because it has pretty stable equity against any calling range.

have you done the math on that?

Suited low cards have good equity against bigger hands, thats what im trying to say. As well as the fact that being suited makes it so there is less of a difference what type of range we are facing.

Most of the time versus an unknown who sits down full they will fold to a threebet the first time i threebet them. That's my experience.

i don't see how our equity is at all relevant when we are going to be out of position after the flop with a hand that virtually never flops a reasonable pair.

I'd say your effective equity is rather lower than your actual equity.

Originally Posted by Renton

i don't see how our equity is at all relevant when we are going to be out of position after the flop with a hand that virtually never flops a reasonable pair.

I'd say your effective equity is rather lower than your actual equity.

Can you explain what you mean by all this?

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Renton

i don't see how our equity is at all relevant when we are going to be out of position after the flop with a hand that virtually never flops a reasonable pair.

I'd say your effective equity is rather lower than your actual equity.

Can you explain what you mean by all this?

Because it's harder to realize your equity oop?

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Renton

i don't see how our equity is at all relevant when we are going to be out of position after the flop with a hand that virtually never flops a reasonable pair.

I'd say your effective equity is rather lower than your actual equity.

Can you explain what you mean by all this?

well i guess what i'm getting at is "playability"

You might take each of the trashy hands you 3-bet preflop oop and assign them a postflop expectation. You could state that expectation in terms of the hands equity in the pot vs his range. Like, 92 suited is probably 25-32% vs most hu 3-bet calling ranges so you might guess that your expectation postflop is roughly 30% of the pot. But then you take a robust hand like T9s which probably has only a few percent more equity than 92s. But you know that T9s is going to way outperform 92s.

So you might say that T9s a somewhat higher effective equity than actual, and say the opposite of 92s. My guess is that T9s expectation is probably 1-1.25 its pot equity, and 92s is probably 0.5-0.75.

just c/f every street or b/f flop not a huge difference either way

I just don't get why you feel the need to 3-bet this when people are going to give you credit for 3-betting a wide range anyway

yeah i agree

for this 3-bet to be profitable there needs to be a fairly high amount of preflop fold equity, which there almost never is in todays aggro hu matches.

This is exactly what happened so far in the match. He raised pre i folded. I raised pre he folded. Just two hands. Then this hand comes up. Now even if this guy is only opening 60% of his buttons its fairly likely he's going to fold 75% of the time, but even if he folds like 1/3rd the time its not really a big mistake.

75% are you serious

that seems incredibly generous, especially coming from someone who has play at least 200 times more hu cash than me

Originally Posted by Renton

75% are you serious

that seems incredibly generous, especially coming from someone who has play at least 200 times more hu cash than me

So you don't think someone who opens with 60% of buttons will call with more than 25% of the hands he opens with (aka 15% of total hands possible)? I don't think its 75% though, it's probably more like 55-65%

i expect regulars to autocall any pair, suited broadway, suited ace, suited connector, AJ+ KQ+, and a ton of other decent gapping sc type hands, which i'm sure comes out to considerably more than 15% of all holdings, not to mention 4-bet bluff some.

Anyways its a pretty pointless discussion, i guess i just believe there are a myriad of better 3-bet candidates, and unless you feel the need to 3-bet every single time you have a hand between said myriad of hands and 95s, then why not just choose to 3-bet better hands and balance/optimize your range in that way?

Then again i guess in doing that you forgo some of the ability to establish control of the match and build momentum whenever you want and w/e so i guess thats a disadvantage to 3-betting more sane hands.

Anyways if u conceded that your 3-bet was in order to establish control/history/image and that made it ok despite it being fairly significantly negative ev in a vacuum vs anyone decent, then I guess I could agree.

I just believe that reason needs to be firmly established, and not just like "i was mixing up my play and it was sooted" or w/e.

Also an underlying factor is that you need to be playing fairly well postflop with these sort of hands to even have a positive postflop expectation, since these hands carry a ton of neg implied odds, what with kicker issues, flopping dominated flush draws, getting too carried away with bluffs and hero calldowns etc. Noting also that these sorts of negativities become amplified when you are playing someone against whom you have few reads. (EDIT: as exemplified in op, game set match bitch)

Well put