Originally posted by Kyyberi
I like 1/3 sizing. Gives room for opp to raise bluff, and getting value from weaker hands.
In 3bet pot and SPR 3, we are not calling a raise. We have TPTK with a gutshot and 2 bdfd's, and opponents have weaker hands in their raising range. If we call a raise and start to hero fold turns, we end up folding the best hand way too often. And a raise puts us almost all-in anyway, unless it's really small.
Turn check doesn't achieve anything. If opponent doesn't have anything, I doubt he is betting on the river to make us fold our assumed AA. If we think to check to give our opponent a chance to hit something, he will often call that 1/3 with his draw anyway. And if he hits, we get more on the river.
ye, i like the 1/3 too, but on this dry of a structre and our blockers to draws, i would't think that a check doesn't achieve anything. it will increase the chance of villain making a mistake oop on the river, because from which hands are we getting value with 1/3 on the turn? we block the draws that could like to continue against this size. just trying to point out that the diffrence between the two should be quite marginal actually. but yeah likely this would require a read that villain likes to bluff when preceiving "weakness" to make it an option.
about not calling a raise i don't know, seems not that black&white to me - there is no reads, we don't know villain, villain doesnt know us. without picking up any additional equity on the turn and facing another bet(after getting x-r on flop) a fold would be just fine imo. there is like almost 2/3 of the deck (~30/45) giving us the needed equity to continue on turn (calling the allin or sending allin ourselves) - if we miss this completly against an unknown i'd assume a fold is just fine. lets say a 2 of hearts peels instead of king - i'd be ok with keeping my ~35-40bb instead of having stacked off in that case when villain fires again.
Sure understand the logic of getting it in here, but without one upside of this approach (avoiding that villain exploits us calling, which without any reads he cannot reasonably do imo) i don't see how calling could be a big blunder compared to stacking of, again the diffrence should be very marginal. just by the odds we cant be folding turn that often ^^ the ~1/3 of cards on the turn, he also needs to fire another bullet on top to make us fold - so we are folding even less than this and i think often enough if he fires again on these cards we are far enough behind to leave it be. I mean maybe i am wrong here or missing something, but i just don't see that many hands x-r on this boardstructure that we actually dominate, since we are blocking those heavily too?. So i'd assume its more often a set and a few K4xx / K9xx / QJTx. against the sets we have almost no outs at this point, against the 2 pairs enough to call, but then we are also not printing and losing most of the time, remains the draw that we also block (that on any club has often picked up a fd if played this agressive) and on blank will slow down too at least sometimes.
So bottom line, i am wondering what important factor here do i miss, why stacking of in this specific spot would be the clear better choice compared to calling? just folding the better hand in a few relatively rare cases seems a bit thin?
