Overpair 3way

bet small/fold to a raise.

Yeah, but what do you think about his range? Does he have sets there?

He can have set. But he has pairs, Kx too. We bet and fold when raised.

Ok thanks.

Originally posted by nitrol
bet small/fold to a raise.

You have two fishes in the pot on nl2 and not even blocking TPs with AA... Bet bigger flop/turn and big on the river again.
Sets are only 6 combinations, Kx are a lot more so it makes no sense to be scared.

bet-bet-bet here. I would go bigger OTF and OTT. OTR you can bet smaller and fold to a raise. There is still some sets and maybe K8 in villains range. If you bet big you wont get so many calls from weaker hands and you might commit yourself to call villains raise.

Originally posted by la55i
If you bet big you wont get so many calls from weaker hands and you might commit yourself to call villains raise.

How is that a reason for anything? I see it quite often and I really don't understand it at all...

I would bet the river, cuz I see them betting to often the river by theirself if they hit the set.

Originally posted by kriko92

Originally posted by la55i
If you bet big you wont get so many calls from weaker hands and you might commit yourself to call villains raise.

How is that a reason for anything? I see it quite often and I really don't understand it at all...

It means that after our big bet, the villains raise is so small that it leaves us with ridiculous odds (Let's say 10:1<) with wich we just can't fold, because we need some super solid reads that villain is never ever bluffing (or spewing). Hence, we are forced to make the call and lose our money most of the time.

Imagine it like this. We bet big on the river and leave villain with 1BB. He shoves. We know he is super strong often...But he is a fish. Not calling is out of the question, but as you see here, betting so big is a mistake. It would be much better, easier and more profitable to bet smaller, let fishman call his weaker hands or just honestly tell us that he has the goods. It takes a really bad whale or a really good player to exploit bet/bet/betsmall line.

Just make bigger bets every street. You just lost tons of value here. Against aggression (turn check/raise or so) you should be looking to give up.

Originally posted by kriko92

Originally posted by la55i
If you bet big you wont get so many calls from weaker hands and you might commit yourself to call villains raise.

How is that a reason for anything? I see it quite often and I really don't understand it at all...

Pichux explained this pretty well. If villain raises us OTR it is very often for value, he doesn't do it with weaker hands than 2 pair. If we bet big, we leave so little behind that we get good odds to call and see if he is bluffing or does it with Kx hand... This way we will lose our whole stack. If we bet smaller OTR and villain raises, we can still fold. Also our hand is not the nuts and if we bet 3 streets and make it big OTR we don't get so many calls so it might be even more profitable to bet smaller.

Bet sizing is totally fine on a dry board. People don't have draws to call bigger bets with, and a pair like 7x shouldn't call big bets twice, especially 3-ways. If bigger bets get called, you should begin suspecting that you are beat.

@Pichux, La55i
Still doesn't make sense... Being commited just means that we think calling it off would be more profitable (or less losing if we think in overall hand EV) than folding. It doesn't change the EV of our bet in any way with all other things constant. Following your logic, if stacks were deeper here it would mean that betting big becomes more profitable. Do you agree with that?

When we are committed we are not just thinking calling it off would be better, it actually IS better even if we lose 80% of the time or something like that. If we bet small we can fold when villain raises us and we are probably behind. That will decrease our variance and prevent us from losing big pots with expensive second best hands. I also think that bigger bet OTR will generate more folds and that is why it might actually be more profitable to make a thin value bet. If we play deep we can bet bigger because we can fold when we get raised.

Big bets are for big hands. Here our hand is not the nuts and we don't want to see a raise. If we bet small and fold to a raise, we will win small(+) and lose small (-), if we bet big we will win big (++) and lose even bigger when raised and we have to call (---). Or then you just win 0 because villain folds to your big bet but when he raises you, you have to call so you lose big...

This is my thinking. Is there something you disagree with?

Originally posted by YohanN7
Bet sizing is totally fine on a dry board. People don't have draws to call bigger bets with, and a pair like 7x shouldn't call big bets twice, especially 3-ways. If bigger bets get called, you should begin suspecting that you are beat.

But it's NL2. I think generally people are going to give up bad hands versus 1/2 or 3/4 pot of bet and continue with TP/FD/2nd pair and stuff. By betting small you are just losing value.

By betting big we will fold lower pairs that may call again. Agree with Yohan.

Originally posted by la55i
Here our hand is not the nuts and we don't want to see a raise. If we bet small and fold to a raise, we will win small(+) and lose small (-), if we bet big we will win big (++) and lose even bigger when raised and we have to call (---). Or then you just win 0 because villain folds to your big bet but when he raises you, you have to call so you lose big...

This is my thinking. Is there something you disagree with?

This part is what I disagree with. You don't lose more just because you're going to call off the raise.
Let's say you bet 0.5$. He calls with worse, you win 0.5$; if he raises, you fold and lose 0.5$.
If you bet 1$ -> he calls with worse hand, you win 1$; he raises, you fold and lose 1$. Now if you say you are commited to call, that means you decided you will lose less than 1$ by calling and not more than that. Having to call doesn't equal losing more money even though you are putting more money in the pot when behind.

Being commited or not should be completely irrelevant for our decisions about bet sizings unless we use it for levelling our opponent. The only thing that matters are the calling and raising ranges of our opponent to the different sizings. Here I wanted to bet big because fish's calling ranges tend to be inelastic. If we think they will fold too much to big bets, we make it smaller. My main point though was that "commitedness" is too often used as a justification for the plays we wish to make when actually it is not an argument for anything.

I got your point but I think being committed is still not completely irrelevant here. Getting more calls is the main reason to bet small here of course. I don't know if I want to play for stacks with single pair and if we bet bit we put ourselves in a position where we might have to play for stacks.

If we have AA on a board where flush completes OTR. Do we bet small only to get more calls or to avoid playing for stacks when we get raised? In that situation I think it is better to go for bet/fold than bet/call.

Originally posted by la55i
I don't know if I want to play for stacks with single pair and if we bet bit we put ourselves in a position where we might have to play for stacks.

If we have AA on a board where flush completes OTR. Do we bet small only to get more calls or to avoid playing for stacks when we get raised? In that situation I think it is better to go for bet/fold than bet/call.

Not wanting to bet/call because you will be commited in a certain spot indicates that you are afraid that you will lose more money when you call it off. This expectation or fear can be either rational or irrational.

In the first case you actually will in reality lose more when you bet/call because the opponent won't have enough worse hands in his shoving range. What does this mean if true? It means that the belief that we are commited is wrong and we have to bet/fold regardless of odds. (There was a reason why I said earlier that being commited = we think bet/call>bet/fold") It is important to realise that commitedness as many other things in poker is not an absolute rule and sometimes our intuitions can turn out to be more correct than conventional wisdom.

That being said, we have to be extremely careful because our intuitions often, too often, turn out to be wrong. One of the main reasons for irrational fear in this case can be that calling a raise and losing will happen much more often than winning and these are the cases that readily come to mind when we consider bet/calling (availability heuristic). Add to that our tendency to prefer not losing instead of winning (loss aversion) and you get an irrational fear of playing for stacks.

How to actually determine whether our opponent has enough worse hands so that we are commited? I do not have a definitive answer. What I can suggest is that in the situations where we genuinely don't know, we can play our range and make sure we don't get exploited - calling enough but not everything. Of course, this is not a problem only for the big bets. In your example with the flush river betting smaller and folding doesn't magically solve it; the opponent can still bluff a ton and exploit you.