[50NL] JJ...3bet pot. Turn jam

[Savy]

Why is it strange? He clearly doesn't like folding to 3bets, I don't think it's even close that the 3bet pre is for value. I would expect villain to have adjusted his ranges given we are 5 handed, I would expect villain to be opening quite a lot of hands.

My 3bet looks pretty strong, BB vs MP, I would expect him to be looking to GII w/ KK+ as I am very rarely messing about here.

98s makes sense, don't know why I haven't added that. Why would it be strange for him to play his FD's this way?

Already had long drawn out conversations about 3bets being for value or as bluffs pre and how it's silly to define them as such. Not having that again. Just pointing out that the figures you have quoted don't really alter his ranges in positions like this all that much.

I just think pot shoving into a really strong range on the turn with all his FDs is a bit much that's all. Could be wrong.

I don't find it strange in any way.

You're obviously a better player than I am but if I write our a reply explaining why I think it's a bit strange not just stating it surely it's not too much to ask that you tell me what's wrong with my argument?

If you've just read that statement I made in isolation from the rest of the post obviously we use that stat but I'm arguing that we don't really have the evidence to back up changing what we'd do as a default in this spot. So he should be saying I 3bet JJ because *reasons he'd always do it as standard*. I wasn't saying 3betting JJ in this spot is bad.

[pocketfours]

I'm arguing that we don't really have the evidence to back up changing what we'd do as a default in this spot.

I think in general 5 handed it's pretty close between call and 3bet JJ from the blinds vs UTG. Villain call vs 3bet feels to me like the most important thing to consider when making the decision (so not at all strange). If he calls 3bets a lot then he's likely not a nit about it when opening UTG either.

[Renton]

Already had long drawn out conversations about 3bets being for value or as bluffs pre and how it's silly to define them as such. Not having that again. Just pointing out that the figures you have quoted don't really alter his ranges in positions like this all that much.

I just think pot shoving into a really strong range on the turn with all his FDs is a bit much that's all. Could be wrong.



You're obviously a better player than I am but if I write our a reply explaining why I think it's a bit strange not just stating it surely it's not too much to ask that you tell me what's wrong with my argument?

If you've just read that statement I made in isolation from the rest of the post obviously we use that stat but I'm arguing that we don't really have the evidence to back up changing what we'd do as a default in this spot. So he should be saying I 3bet JJ because *reasons he'd always do it as standard*. I wasn't saying 3betting JJ in this spot is bad.

A 23 pfr will probably open about 22-24 percent of hands from the hijack, this is roughly any broadway, 22+ 54s+ 86s+ J8s+ K9s+ A2s+. If he calls with 50% of that, its about 55+ KQo AQo AKo 76s+ 97s+ KTs ATs, and JJ has 63.5% vs that; in reality your equity will be much better than that vs his call range since it will omit his 4-bet value hands. And he'll probably bluff often enough to 5-bet jam over his 4-betting range. And all of this is forgetting the dead money you win vs his folding range.

cliffs: it's a clear reraise.