What you doing if flop comes 332 and he cbets? just fold? you just playing to set mine? Posted by BigHawk89
Against this opponent yep i would lay it down on that kind of flop, i know its nitty but against this type of opponent they just bash pot and i have come to realise i can't level myself and just call them down or get it in on flops like that. I'm still very much a work in progress and obviously with nl10 being filled with nitregs who just sit and wait for big pairs and pot pot pot i have to adapt to that, this was a situation which i was clueless about and thats why i posted. I'm well aware that we are not always set mining i just wanted to find out whether i should or shouldn't be set mining with stack sizes with very solid reads that oppo will be very strong here.
ok so my veiw is that in general 'set mining' in a 3bet pot this deep is bad.. this is because - we flop a set and dont get paid - flop a set and still lose - even some cases (rare) flop a set and have to fold we all know this bla bla bla but goin back to the original questions- is this a standard cal l- can we set mine here? imo thinking WE HAVE to set mine here is incorect the definition of set mining for me is playin fit/fold- if you dont hit you dont play and jus fold- i sometimes may do this here with smaller pairs dependant on reads. but we have a strong hand IP so doin calcs on a pure set mine is pointless. given dynamics id happily call 88-JJ and play poker IP - ppl are not only 3b KK/AA.. im not always callin but im when i do its not a pure set mine.!! Posted by LnarinOO
Well, the question was asked:
"...am i right in assuming it would be ok with any pair from 2s-9s up essentially looking to set mine and not overplaying just the one pair?"
The answer to that question is "No, it's not okay to set-mine here". It's tough to prove that without working out the implied odds for set-mining. Nobody is suggesting we should always be set-mining pocket pairs.
Whether we can call for value with history on the 3-better is another question. Heads-up, we could definitely call for value if we give him a wide 3-bet range. However, this 3-bet is pretty huge and we'll be playing a 54BB pot against two opponents knowing we're going to see at least one overcard to our 99 about 80% of the time. In that context, against the two ranges and an effective stack of 82BB, 99 would seem to be a marginal hand.
It would be nice to have answers to questions like "Does the 3-better c-bet wide OOP three-handed?" and "Does the limp-caller play face-up post-flop?".
Of course with reads we can play in position and trust ourselves to make good decisions. Even then we'll probably make the wrong decision plenty of times. Without reads we should probably assume that the 3-better doesn't have a super-wide range and just fold.
Comments
Took about 15 posters itt, but we got there boys. nh wp gg.
"...am i right in assuming it would be ok with any pair from 2s-9s up essentially looking to set mine and not overplaying just the one pair?"
The answer to that question is "No, it's not okay to set-mine here". It's tough to prove that without working out the implied odds for set-mining. Nobody is suggesting we should always be set-mining pocket pairs.
Whether we can call for value with history on the 3-better is another question. Heads-up, we could definitely call for value if we give him a wide 3-bet range. However, this 3-bet is pretty huge and we'll be playing a 54BB pot against two opponents knowing we're going to see at least one overcard to our 99 about 80% of the time. In that context, against the two ranges and an effective stack of 82BB, 99 would seem to be a marginal hand.
It would be nice to have answers to questions like "Does the 3-better c-bet wide OOP three-handed?" and "Does the limp-caller play face-up post-flop?".
Of course with reads we can play in position and trust ourselves to make good decisions. Even then we'll probably make the wrong decision plenty of times. Without reads we should probably assume that the 3-better doesn't have a super-wide range and just fold.