mp JJ vs 3b, so hard decision

Hi there,

Firstly, I think JJ is a decent hand to 4-bet light, if you wanted to. You don't necessarily need to 4-bet with 72o to make it a bluff

However, in this situation I would call. Well, I don't like calling OOP as well, but I think that set-mining with pocket Jacks might be an exception. You don't need to have an edge postflop, you just need to hit a jack. If you think that his 3-bet range is tight, just make a mental note for yourself not to overplay your hand if all you have is an overpair.

In theory, fit or fold should be profitable here if you call.

All in all, whatever you choose, imo, is better than fold Maybe shoving preflop is the only worse option

Regards,

German

Hi Imimba,

Preflop: If we 4-bet can we fold to a shove given our equity versus his possible range?

If we call we usually have to play fit or fold postflop and we know nothing about the guy.

So based on what I seen from him in these 47 hands I'd either 4-bet/call (it's a bit light at these limits vs unknown) or simply fold. We won't make a profit calling 3-bets OOP vs unknowns.

Bogdan, can I ask you please?

1) When he shoves after our 4-bet we need 37% equity for a call. Against an unknown, we assume his range is QQ+, AK. We get only 36% against this range. So why can't we fold? We are flipping at best, no?

2) "We won't make a profit calling 3-bets OOP vs unknowns."
Why? Aren't our implied odds even better in a 3-bet pot? He is a big stack, so why call-15 won't work here? Especially at micro limits I think it's possible to bring some money in with a set of jacks in a 3-bet pot, even when we are OOP.

Thanks

Originally posted by Th334
Bogdan, can I ask you please?

1) When he shoves after our 4-bet we need 37% equity for a call. Against an unknown, we assume his range is QQ+, AK. We get only 36% against this range. So why can't we fold? We are flipping at best, no?

2) "We won't make a profit calling 3-bets OOP vs unknowns."
Why? Aren't our implied odds even better in a 3-bet pot? He is a big stack, so why call-15 won't work here? Especially at micro limits I think it's possible to bring some money in with a set of jacks in a 3-bet pot, even when we are OOP.

Thanks

Hey German,

1) I didn't say we should call in that statement I only asked what Imimba would do.

Later on I did say that my plan would be to either fold or 4-bet/call based on what I seen villain do so far. But I agree with you that 4-bet/call is a bit light if his range is obviously that tight.

2) The problem we usually face is that we do not play simply for set mine. People say they do but they end up spewing a lot more.

Why? because they get flops where they have overpair and then they can't fold the hand and overplay it.

If you play it 100% for set mine then it may be slightly profitable as we would lose 7x7 BBs when we don't hit (49 BBs, 1/2 stack) and then we have to make that up when we hit (now keep in mind that when we hit the set it's not guaranteed we will win the hand so that 49 BB loss rate on average turns out to be more like 60-65 BB).

2) The problem we usually face is that we do not play simply for set mine. People say they do but they end up spewing a lot more.

So true. When you have pocket jacks and the flop comes 789 rainbow, you just cannot fold but you should.

we would lose 7x7 BBs when we don't hit

I think I saw somewhere else that people use x7 factor, and I didn't ask why.

Isn't it x8.8 factor? We hit a set in 12% cases (2/50x3), not in 30% cases.

We still have some profit if played correctly, I'm just curious why 7.

Originally posted by Th334

2) The problem we usually face is that we do not play simply for set mine. People say they do but they end up spewing a lot more.

So true. When you have pocket jacks and the flop comes 789 rainbow, you just cannot fold but you should.

we would lose 7x7 BBs when we don't hit

I think I saw somewhere else that people use x7 factor, and I didn't ask why.

Isn't it x8.8 factor? We hit a set in 12% cases (2/50x3), not in 30% cases.

We still have some profit if played correctly, I'm just curious why 7.

On average you hit a set 1 in 8 times. So 7 times out of 8 you do not and thus, if played purely for set mine, we lose our initial investment.

100/8 = 12.5 so it's close enough for me.

Gotcha.

I agree, it's easier to think that we hit 1 in 8 times than 1.2 in 10 times

Thanks, Bogdan.

Must remember, that we hit 12% of the times.

Originally posted by Imimba1
Must remember, that we hit 12% of the times.

+1