J8s BTN play

I don’t think it makes too much sense to raise him when he leads in to 2 players. If he 3bets us you need to fold and now you keep his range a little bit wider I think. The turn I would most likely fold. There are a decent amount of Kx and 2 pair+ combo’s in his range I think.

Cheers,
SDK1987

Why would you raise the flop? Three players are still involved and both of them can have a K. I say WP on flop!!

I also think that you should fold the turn, at this moment there are 2 overcards so not much chance for you to win.

Raising flop is an option because we are three-handed (for isolation purposes). It might not be better, but it makes turn easier to play.

Indeed, it will probably drive the SB out of the pot, because I am the OR Kx is most definitely in my range more than in villains range. And a donk bet on the F will often indicate weakness instead of strenght.
Also if villain calls I have an easy T as I can choose to bet or check behind as the agressor depending on the T card. Assuming villain does not donk again.

I'm just doubting what I should have done...

Originally posted by Sailer85
...
I'm just doubting what I should have done...

I have no idea versus two presumably good unknowns. Requires detailed mathematical study that probably isn't worth the effort. With a maniac in the BB, it is definitely a raise.

that's the problem.... it always depends on the villain

Originally posted by Sailer85
that's the problem.... it always depends on the villain
Not if you aspire to play GTO, something you probably have to be reasonably close to at the very high stakes.

with 3 players on the flop, there's no optimal play

there always is an optimal play, problem is that finding it is probably very difficult/impossible

Originally posted by Sailer85
there always is an optimal play, problem is that finding it is probably very difficult/impossible

Actually, that is a statement that only the mathematicians could confirm (or refute). There is an unbeatable strategy (GTO), that fact is proved beyond any doubt. Whether there is an optimal strategy is another question. It is even very, very hard to even define "optimal". The "optimal" in GTO is a misnomer, because the "optimal" we'd be after seeks to win the most money whereas the "optimal" in GTO merely guarantees you can't lose.

there's no unbeatable strategy either if we're 3way

The theorem of Nash seems to guarantee there is one, because a Nash equilibrium exists for any finite number of players - even in NL. When HU, if in equilibrium, no player can deviate and win. Same thing 3-handed. You may ask if two players could deviate is such a way that one of them gains and you are no longer guaranteed to not lose. I can't rule that out, but the hypothesis of Nash's theorem is then probably broken because players aren't allowed to cooperate.

There are Nash equilibria 3-way, but these don't guarantee zero EV. Different Nash equilibria have different EVs in this situation. Your opponents don't have to (knowingly) cooperate for you to get the short end of the stick.

That is news to me. Suppose then we have an equilibrium situation where my EV is below zero. I am losing and by definition of Nash equilibrium I can't change strategy to improve my situation? In other words, I'd be losing and can't do shit about it?

I can't prove these situations are impossible, but I have a hard time to see that they exist. At least not without breaking the no-cooperation hypothesis.

There is a PS member (also a mathematician) who has written about this somewhere. Don't remember the nick.

You can always fold for 0-EV... so guess you can always change it to that play...

Originally posted by Sailer85
You can always fold for 0-EV... so guess you can always change it to that play...

EV of an action (folding) is different from the EV of a hand or the EV of a strategy

To illustrate my difficulties here: Suppose it is 3-handed, it is player A, player B and me. It is a Nash equilibrium, and I am losing.

• I can't by definition change strategy and lose less.
• In particular, I can't (again by definition) begin playing exactly like A and expect to lose less.
• In particular, I can't (yet again by definition) begin playing exactly like B and expect to lose less.

Has it been proved that these situations exist or is it the case that it has not been proved that they don't exist? There is a substantial difference.

Sorry about nagging on, but I happen to be interested in math, not just poker.

To the hand:

Flop: I would definetely raise, I dont see any merit of calling unless you have a very specific and solid read, that your opponent always have you beat. And by solid read I mean read developed after several thousand hands, that you probably dont have. So standard play should be to raise and isolate HU with the big blind. He can still by donking any pair, any straight draw or air, you should be even ahead of his. And even if you are not ahead, you still should raise, because knocking 3rd player out will boost your equity only for extra small bet so thats a huge gain for a small price.

Turn: As played, its difficult, because now SB is donking. Question is, why would he donk now and not on the flop? Bluffing doesnt makes much sense for him imo, because if he would be bluffing, he probably would do that on the flop? Or maybe he know spiked some straight draw with JT / J9 and is bluffing but thats not that likely imo. But you could call once and deside on the river or fold right away. If its mistake it will be a small one there, but I think huge diference will be on the flop.

To YohaN7: Yes there are milion of spots where you have below zero EV and you cant do anything about it. For example everytime you are on the Big Blind you expect to lose a lot. Or any asymetric situation that you are underdog you cant do anything about it, because of these asymetric ranges, best you can do is lose the least.

Originally posted by Necromadx
...
To YohaN7: Yes there are milion of spots where you have below zero EV and you cant do anything about it. For example everytime you are on the Big Blind you expect to lose a lot. Or any asymetric situation that you are underdog you cant do anything about it, because of these asymetric ranges, best you can do is lose the least.

I don't think you understand the context of my post. We are discussing GTO, not the big blind being a bad spot.