NL200 Pukey spot with trips when nit check shoves river

Hey Fuzzyfish,

Preflop defend is fine, can also 3b.

Flop call fine. Turn fine.

River is awkward. I think this might be ambitious x/r with worse Jx. I think once again we are behind opponents value range. Unfortunately there is not a linear relationship between the odds we are getting and how frequently we should call. The smaller opponents x/r the less likely it might be to be a bluff etc.

Villain looks nitty overall, I'd probably just hero fold here. Maybe AJ call.

Hey weasel, why calling here pre KJs is good when we have players left to act, villain opens 16%, we have 41% odds to call, we have 43% equity and we are dominated super often, but calling AJo on BB when villain opens 18%, we have 10% more equity than KJs, we only need 33% to call and we are dominating him more than he dominate us is bad? Are position and suitedness that much powerfull weapons?

Originally posted by sandraardnas
Hey weasel, why calling here pre KJs is good when we have players left to act, villain opens 16%, we have 41% odds to call, we have 43% equity and we are dominated super often, but calling AJo on BB when villain opens 18%, we have 10% more equity than KJs, we only need 33% to call and we are dominating him more than he dominate us is bad? Are position and suitedness that much powerfull weapons?

Well, for the record this hand is probably in my 3betting range.

But anyway, we can call because it's not really that much about equity. We might even prefer to flop a gutshot with backdoor than a dominated top pair. Despite closeness in equity KJo would be much inferior cold-call in this situation.

And yeah, as always, position is huge.

I recently read an interesting article on 3betting. It claims that we should be leaned towards 3betting merged range OOP and polarized range IP, because opponents often call IP with marginal holdings, while either folding or 4betting when they are OOP. What do you think?

In this particular spot I feel this hand is too strong to fold but if I 3bet he just folds weaker hands or turns them into bluff by 4betting, neither a desirable scenario.

Originally posted by fuzzyfish
I recently read an interesting article on 3betting. It claims that we should be leaned towards 3betting merged range OOP and polarized range IP, because opponents often call IP with marginal holdings, while either folding or 4betting when they are OOP. What do you think?

In this particular spot I feel this hand is too strong to fold but if I 3bet he just folds weaker hands or turns them into bluff by 4betting, neither a desirable scenario.

At least where i play regs dont have problem calling OOP.
Also it is imo tougher to play vs polarized range as you almost allways hold bluff catcher, also it is much easier to play polarized range because with most hands you know if you are ahead or behind.

Example, if you 3bet BU vs UTG only AA, 56s-89s, on most boards AA is clear value bet and other hands are mostly bluffs or semi bluff unless they hit strong.
So it is easy to play it.

If you would 3bet AA and bluff KQ, then it is kind of merged, and when you hit your pair you are not sure if you are ahead so you pot control and often face tough decision

Yes, in your example we 3bet in position and it makes total sense to polarize our 3betting range.

On the other hand, when we are 3betting OOP, usually from blinds vs BTN and CO opens, we can profitably depolarise our 3betting range and skew it towards value hands. Opponents know they can play postflop in position, also naturally they dont want to fold too much versus blind resteals, so they start calling with speculative/marginal holdings like T9s or QTo. That means we can add valuehands like AT, KJ etc to our valuerange and not get dominated postflop.

Originally posted by fuzzyfish
Yes, in your example we 3bet in position and it makes total sense to polarize our 3betting range.

On the other hand, when we are 3betting OOP, usually from blinds vs BTN and CO opens, we can profitably depolarise our 3betting range and skew it towards value hands. Opponents know they can play postflop in position, also naturally they dont want to fold too much versus blind resteals, so they start calling with speculative/marginal holdings like T9s or QTo. That means we can add valuehands like AT, KJ etc to our valuerange and not get dominated postflop.

How do they defend sb vs bb? You have to flat speculstive hands to defend enough. Yeah probably makes most sense merged range vs BU because Bu has to defend really wide

BB vs SB we have position so I guess we can go with polarized strategy as well, tho I have a feeling that people are more suspicious in that spot and call 3bets lighter as well. In the end we have to consider the tendencies of specific opponent as well I guess...

The fact of 3betting QJs/KJs vs CO from bb/sb has been discussed over and over again even on 2p2 by a lot of guys. Seems like the subject is 5 years old. Many think it's a call many think it's a 3bet. I wouldn't go 2 much into detail which strategy is better depolarized vs balanced overall. I think you should have both strategies and use 1 strategy depending on the villain at hand. More calls = 3bet, more 4bets = call, more folds = 3bet aswell imo.

I play on party poker nl100 and most regs fold decent % and 4bet. So i cant exploit them preflop. Do you use in that case polarized or linear? From SB it makes sense to 3bet linear if BB is good reg who will sqeeze or flat often once we cold call, but for other positions i dont see a reason to 3bet linear.
Sure, if villian defends too much it makes sense to use value heavy range, but still i would polarize it.

Most importantly is to get most ev. Basically you would have to compare the +evness of calling mid range + ev of 3betting polarized vs 3betting more % of hands but linear. I guess SB should be linear because of the exploitativeness, BB it really depends on how well can you exploit and +ev vs certain players postflop. I'm more inclined to go for linear nowadays and 3bet more % - that gives me more +ev for my nuts and I'm sure to play more hands per hour as well. I tend to believe that people play worse in 3bet pots than in normal pots.

Sure i also think people play much worse in 3bet pots, even though the strategy should be similar with difference in stack to pot ratio.
I personally make most mistakes when i call 3bet, because you have to defend wide range for big pots.