should you always triple barrel after a double barrel?

    • Suboptimal88
      Joined: 11.06.2014 Posts: 53
      I have read somewhere that giving up on river after a double barrel is more -ev than triple barreling.

      This example assume that effective stack sizes are 100bb and we face one opponent who appears to be solid but we dont have any reads on him , we also dont have reads on the population.

      You can answer for both oop and ip.

      Lets say the board is Js-6d-2c and i have KdQd , I bet the flop for 2/3 and villain calls , turn is
      Tc who gives me a open ended straight draw , i bet another 2/3 and villain calls , river is 3h , now what? firing another 2/3 of the pot is more +ev than giving up?

      Players make a lot of theoretic mistakes on river and betting force them to fold a lot of the hands who should call.

      But i really wonder since i play 10nl still there are many players who are even capable to call
      a shove with second pair......

      What do you think?
  • 8 replies
    • lynius
      Joined: 15.01.2011 Posts: 382
      It depends.

      If villain is a calling station who would go to showdown with A6o (third pair), then your expected value from a river bet would be much worse than playing a nit. If villain is a nit, what would he have called two streets with, that would give up on the river?

      I would presume one of the best ways to calculate whether your decision in this spot is +/- EV is to calculate the fold equity.

      pot : river bluff size = 1 : 2/3 = 3 : 2 => 40% fold equity required.

      for a 1/2 pot bluff - 1: 1/2 = 2:1 => 33% fold equity required.

      for a 1.5x pot bluff (consider a shove) - 1 : 1.5 = 2 : 3 => 60% fold equity required.

      This becomes difficult if we don't have any reads on villain; else we may not have semi-bluffed our straight draw to a calling station on fourth, or we'd know we're behind if called by a nit.

      I would say play an optimum equilibrium (though without any population reads (by its strictest definition) we may not be able to define an equilibrium). Optimum? Big pots for big hands, small pots for small hands.
    • VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 8,828
      Hi, Suboptimal88
      Disclaimer: I am NOT a coach!;

      (btw, I love your name!)

      There is no "always" in poker.

      However, in this case, where you were betting solely on overcards OTF and OESD OTR, can bet/fold really hurt on the river?

      Some alternate lines:
        X flop, B turn -- the delayed CBet. nice if T is a scare card -- A, K or Q
        CBet flop, X turn, B/F river

      Some random thoughts:
        What is your image? Are you hyper-aggressive? If so, they are less likely to believe you.
        OOP, if you check the R vs a hyper-aggro villain, you may try a check/raise -- but that's gambling :s_biggrin:
        IP I really, really hate it when I get called down on two streets on an A-high board, check behind on the river and lose to pocket 3s or some such, when a bet on the R would almost certainly take the pot.

      Best of luck,
    • HuhtalaJ
      Joined: 19.04.2010 Posts: 7,166
      What you read doesn't necessarily mean that the third barrel is always +EV but more likely that (in some situation) it's best to shoot either 1 or 3 barrels, not 2. This is of course villain dependant.

      One example when it's best to choose between 1 and 3 barrels would be a villain that never folds made hands to 2 barrels but does against 3 barrels. If you cbet the flop and the villain calls assumingly with a range of a lot of made hands of different value, a second barrel as a bluff would be a total waste of money if you weren't going to fire a third one on the river. Therefore you should either check the turn or triple barrel.

      It can be quite the opposite as well. For example, we could have you 3betting against a villain that usually makes his decision of calling down or not on the turn in 3bet pots. Against him you should never fire the third barrel as a bluff whereas double barreling air could be a viable option.
    • 4s4s4s
      Joined: 12.09.2014 Posts: 225
      It depends on opp. There's no answer is it +EV or -EV
    • YohanN7
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 3,907
      Perhaps surprisingly, the calling station is the ideal opponent to 3-barrel against. (Why?)
    • Rufus433
      Joined: 20.08.2010 Posts: 457
      Hi, Suboptimal, you are the only one who can find the answer you are looking for, as you know it is complicated thing and it needs a lot of info, i suggest get pokerstrategys equilab, flopzilla or some other calculator where you can do multiple street analysis, i suggest check out google or ps video section to find a guide how you can calculate similar spots yourself.
    • bulldozzer7
      Joined: 07.11.2010 Posts: 719
      This is the first time i hear this generalized claim.
      What calculation would you base this on?
    • IvicaIliev77
      Joined: 31.05.2012 Posts: 3,268
      If you are looking for general answer, I would say answer is YES.
      Since poker is game of adjustment played by real people, having a fixed strategy can really back fire. In other words, if opponent sees you ONCE that you tripple barreled bluff or turned 99 into bluff on KQxxx board, he will adjust accordingly and then you will be the one who is loosing money long term.
      To answer this question, you obviously have to take into consideration some key factors:
      - Blind/stack size
      - Opponent type
      - General tendencies at limits you play regarding opponents facing triple barrel
      - If that opponent has specific reads vs you
      - How does that opponent sees you and your perceived ranges pre and post flop
      - Board texture and how it improves or improved his/hers or your range

      This is just from top of my head but I am sure many other cash game pro's can elaborate on this topic even more in depth.

      Great idea for thread by the way :)