Trips gegen AI

That hand is very strong but I think it could be folded anyway. You have invested 2bb and now you would be risking your whole stack. You just simply get better spots to take his money. His play is weird and fishy but better 3x and QQ are still possible.

Might be weaker 3x or Qx or any pocket pair too.. If you feel like gambling you could call, but I think the risk reward ratio is just too bad

Whats the limit?

At micros, i often see that and i snap call them to see any type of Ace high, Qx, AA, KK. You will be against a better 3 very rarely. You will even dominate hands like 34, 35, 23 that fish love due to connectors and will see those more often than A3, K3.

I can find a fold only vs known nits.

Unless he has QQ your up, you'll be facing slowplayed AA KK or Qx most of the time.

If it is a snap-anything, it is a snap fold.

Mathematically, you should fold something 95% of your bluff catchers here. The real question is whether you should call with a couple of A3 and, if so, how many.

There is no read (or limit) given in OP that suggests the guy is insane.

I agree with Yohan, it should be a snap fold.
To call this you have to win 95%. That simply is not gonna happen ever. Weaker 3x has almost 50% equity against you, any pocket pair has decent equity too. Even against 100% random range you will not win 95% even with this hand.

Facing strong aggression in an unraised pot. Easy decision.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the limit, it´s NL4. The villain was an unknown. It was his first (and last) hand at the table.

To put this in a reasonable perspective, the danger in calling isn't at all necessarily bad EV. For the sake of discussion, let EV = 0 for a call, it may very well be, and it is if the opponent happens to do this (by accident) according to GTO. Hard to believe, but true. Takes too much typing to explain why this is so. Suffice to say, you can't still exploit him.

The problem with calling is that you become extremely exploitable. Everyone at the table would see, and whenever personally I see someone making such an unbalanced call, I take a big fat note. The best play in a later session may then be to make huge overbets with both nuts and very good, but not nut, hands against that particular player making the unbalanced call.

Well, I don´t think I understand how could I become exploitable. You say you would start to make huge bets to extract value, but I would simply fold. This was very rare example (to be particular, this happened to me for the first time in my life). And also I would call this bet with worse than trips and also usually I have some sample on a opponent so I would get some info from that too. This was just very special occasion and I don´t think this makes me a fool who calls overbets. Maybe you meant it in general way?

Snap call. you will so often see Qx, KK, AA (2 pair fish think is nuts) and some bluffs. Fish don't put you on range and estimate value hands, so they overplay a lot

Originally posted by YohanN7
If it is a snap-anything, it is a snap fold.

Mathematically, you should fold something 95% of your bluff catchers here. The real question is whether you should call with a couple of A3 and, if so, how many.

There is no read (or limit) given in OP that suggests the guy is insane.

So you are trying to play unexploitable vs fish since you suggest folding 95% bluff catchers? there is always a read vs unknown player, unless you never played poker before. You can always use population tendencies. How often do you see 3x+ in such spot? I almost never, but I see a lot overplayed Qx, KK, AA and spews. That is my population read, maybe somebody else has different, but it depends where you play.

Originally posted by la55i
I agree with Yohan, it should be a snap fold.
To call this you have to win 95%. That simply is not gonna happen ever. Weaker 3x has almost 50% equity against you, any pocket pair has decent equity too. Even against 100% random range you will not win 95% even with this hand.

Hi la55i,
can you please explain why he has to win 95% to have +EV call? Risk is 97bb and reward is around 202 BB. So pot odds are:
risk / reward = 0.48
which means that hero should be winning the hand around > 50% (because of rake). I think that hero will be winning here >95% anyway.
Also it doesn'T matter if PP have some equity vs 3x because hero should call if equity vs villains estimated range is > pot odds.

I have to admit that I totally miscalculated that one.
For some reason I calculated the pot odds incorrectly and actually got that 95% and when I saw Yohans 95% there (even if I think he didn't mean that we would need that much equity) I assumed I calculated it correctly. Some kind of brain fart.. it happens

You can't win against the Black mamba.:f_cool:

Originally posted by la55i
I have to admit that I totally miscalculated that one.
For some reason I calculated the pot odds incorrectly and actually got that 95% and when I saw Yohans 95% there (even if I think he didn't mean that we would need that much equity) I assumed I calculated it correctly. Some kind of brain fart.. it happens

Lol, yeah I thought that you made a brain fart but wanted to check it, I was not sure in myself either

Originally posted by GingerKid

Originally posted by YohanN7
If it is a snap-anything, it is a snap fold.

Mathematically, you should fold something 95% of your bluff catchers here. The real question is whether you should call with a couple of A3 and, if so, how many.

There is no read (or limit) given in OP that suggests the guy is insane.

So you are trying to play unexploitable vs fish since you suggest folding 95% bluff catchers? there is always a read vs unknown player, unless you never played poker before. You can always use population tendencies. How often do you see 3x+ in such spot? I almost never, but I see a lot overplayed Qx, KK, AA and spews. That is my population read, maybe somebody else has different, but it depends where you play.

Originally posted by GingerKid

Originally posted by la55i
I agree with Yohan, it should be a snap fold.
To call this you have to win 95%. That simply is not gonna happen ever. Weaker 3x has almost 50% equity against you, any pocket pair has decent equity too. Even against 100% random range you will not win 95% even with this hand.

Hi la55i,
can you please explain why he has to win 95% to have +EV call? Risk is 97bb and reward is around 202 BB. So pot odds are:
risk / reward = 0.48
which means that hero should be winning the hand around > 50% (because of rake). I think that hero will be winning here >95% anyway.
Also it doesn'T matter if PP have some equity vs 3x because hero should call if equity vs villains estimated range is > pot odds.

The 95% is the approximate fraction villain needs to succeed when he bluffs. It has nothing to do with estimated ranges.

Frankly, it is rather silly to come up with anything else than a mathematical answer (which is fold) when it purely comes to a guess-villain's-hand contest.

The 95% is the approximate fraction villain needs to succeed when he bluffs. It has nothing to do with estimated ranges.

Sure, around 95% FE he needs for +EV bluffs. But does it mean that you would fold 95% bluff catchers, meaning that you want to make his bluffs indifferent between betting and checking? Vs fish, it is wrong to try to play unexploitable. You have to put him on some range. It is impossible to make any reasonable decision if you don't put villain on some range (if you don't, how can you know what is a bluff catcher and what is not?). So since you put villain on some range, then you can make exploitable plays, by either folding each bluff catcher if you think villain doesn't have enough bluffs, or by calling each bluff catcher meaning that he bluffs often enough.

Frankly, it is rather silly to come up with anything else than a mathematical answer (which is fold) when it purely comes to a guess-villain's-hand contest.

Sure, we all used math to come up with an answer. I put villain on range like Qx, KK, AA, 3x, some bluffs, and that way all bluff catchers have easy call. If you put villain purely on 3x+ and rare bluffs, then all bluff catchers have easy fold. The last option is to assign villain unexploitable range, meaning that your bluff catchers have around EV = 0, and in that way you should defend bluff catchers with best blocker effect. So my point is, folding around 95% doesn't make any sense. It would make only sense if you would play approximate poker where all villain value hands have 100% equity and all bluffs 0% (polarized range), and you assign to villain unexploitable range.

Look, OP asked if we should call his about 100 bb raise into a pot containing almost 0 bb. It is pretty damned obvious that you call if you know he has air and you fold if you knows he has nuts. I let others play the "villain-bet-big-into-a-nothing-pot-what-does-he-have?" (As you can see, people have differing opinions:) )

If you, on the other hand, assume and unexploitable range (as I do and you do in your last paragraph), then the best you could do is to be unexploitable yourself. This means, in this case, that you should call with approximately the best 5% of your bluff catchers. Call 80% (holding XX with blocker 3 or whatever) and you are terribly exploitable. Not necessarily by villain, but for all who are there to see your bad call. EDIT: Sure, blockers definitely Count when evaluating which are the best 5%.

GTO is, by the way, well approximated in this particular scenario by the simple 95% calculation (villain risks 100 to win 5). It is trickier when villain raises a sane amount and there is more money to bet.