33 iso-raise vs cold-3bet

Probably ok i'm not a fan of the min raise though preflop.

Yeah I would fold pre for over 10% of effective stack and the rake. Would iso cheaper, 3.5 is enough, IP vs a bad player you'll be able to manipulate the pot to get the stack if you hit a strong hand anyway.

Does no one use the Call 20 rule any more?
The idea is that you multiple the amount of the required call (9 BB here) by 20.
If the result is less than the effective stack size -- and if you can reasonably expect to stack off if you hit -- then go for it.
This uses the expected frequency of hitting a set.

In this case the effective stack is 85.5 BB once UTG folds, so this is long-term losing situation...

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
This uses the expected frequency of hitting a set.

Frequency to hit a set is 11.8%, this rule (which was a rule of thumb) seems too tight, suppose you 2.5x the button 100 deep and SB 3bets to 8-8.5bb you fold 33?

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Does no one use the Call 20 rule any more?
The idea is that you multiple the amount of the required call (9 BB here) by 20.
If the result is less than the effective stack size -- and if you can reasonably expect to stack off if you hit -- then go for it.
This uses the expected frequency of hitting a set.

In this case the effective stack is 85.5 BB once UTG folds, so this is long-term losing situation...

I know this rule and it's still part of the beginner articles here on Pokerstrategy.
I've heard about variations of this rule... some say 10x, some 15x and 20x.

What I got from W34z3l's videos is that set-mining isn't really a thing anymore because people open much wider nowadays and do not tend to stack off so easily.

Reasons to call in this situation is not primarily for set-mining.
According to my understanding there are multiple other reasons.
There are multiple ways of winning the pot. And there is the benefit of reducing the possibility of being easily exploited by 3betters.
We can win the pot by floating and taking a stab at the turn or river if villain checks.
We e still have SD value and finally there is always the possibility to improve to a really strong hand.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is W34z2l's take on set-mining when facing a 3bet:

- If stacks are deep
- Multi-way pot (better pot/implied odds)
- If villain is extremely tight
- In most other cases it is not possible
- Position increases implied odds
- Usually 88+ (reduce set over set)
- Most common: we RFI form UTG/MP get 3bet by one of the blinds (tight 3bet% like 2-3%)
- Opening smaller makes it easier to set-mine

None of these conditions are clearly met (except position)

Originally posted by Swish29

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
This uses the expected frequency of hitting a set.

Frequency to hit a set is 11.8%, this rule (which was a rule of thumb) seems too tight, suppose you 2.5x the button 100 deep and SB 3bets to 8-8.5bb you fold 33?

Put that way, it does seem too tight.
It might have stuck in my mind from this article, which is tournament tips for beginners
I generally don't call 3Bets with small PP from short stacks, because a typical short-stack strategy is heavily weighted to big hands.
So to answer your question -- whether I personally fold 33 here depends a huge amount on the character of SB

Cheers,
VS

Originally posted by Swish29

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
This uses the expected frequency of hitting a set.

Frequency to hit a set is 11.8%, this rule (which was a rule of thumb) seems too tight, suppose you 2.5x the button 100 deep and SB 3bets to 8-8.5bb you fold 33?

Consider the following:

NL2 is all about heavily exploitation of all opponents, because they all make massive mistakes.
Still in NL2, the only reason on earth any serious exploitative player would open 2.5BB on BTN is this: SB+BB with both 90/95% fold to steal and 0% 3bet. But even then, it would be a sub optimal play. Here's why:

It's better to open 3bb BTN in case you do get a call because you have both a positional advantage + initiative, which means you will take the pot most of the time flop or turn, or even better, stack off somebody with a set. And yes, against certain players, I would even open 33 on BTN for 4, 5 or why not 6+BB.

Moreover, if you do hit your set, having raised 2.5BB increases SPR and therefore reduces chances to go all in, and therfore, proportionally reduces your winrate.

But anyways, let's pretend Hero opens 2.5BB and gets 3-bet as described, for the sake of argument: I would still mostly fold for a simple reason: 33 is very difficult to navigate with postflop. On roughly 80% of flops, you'll have 3 over cards (and no set) and even though you do have positional advantage, you do not have the initiative (SB 3bet pre), so your only options to win the hand are: hit your set, or bluff. Please also note neither of these 2 options even guarantee you'll win the hand.

Bluffing in NL2 is very, very, very, verrrrryyyy bad. Yes, there are situations for it, but unless you really know what you're doing and against whom you're doing it, do NOT bluff in NL2.
Moreover, if VIllain 3pet pre for 8BB and you call, the SPR is now about 4.5, meaning your bluff raise on his flop C-bet might very well get re-raised all in by pretty much anything that beats you, and then some. Do you call?

200BB deep? We can have a discussion. But 88BB deep, hell no. Fold, fold and refold. This is NL2. There are literally 0 reasons why you should put yourself in this spot when you can print money with 1 hand in your pants while watching netflix on your secondary screen in 20+ spots/hour/table by playing heavily exploitative.

Play tight (card advantage), agressive (initiative) and IP (positional advantage). Value big and often. Overfold against turn/river raises. Do not bluff.
Get that GTO logic back where it belongs: on real poker tables against thinking, competent players, and with real money. Not in NL2.

Nice post but you just explained why I would raise/call 33 in the example I gave: people won't fold their made hands (I guess that's what you meant when you say bluffing is bad).

Also disagree about your SPR concerns, IP it's easy to manipulate the size of the pot by overbetting for instance

Originally posted by Swish29
(part 1) Nice post but you just explained why I would raise/call 33 in the example I gave: people won't fold their made hands (I guess that's what you meant when you say bluffing is bad).

(part 2) Also disagree about your SPR concerns, IP it's easy to manipulate the size of the pot by overbetting for instance

Part 1 - So because people don't fold made hands, you will engage in a 3-bet pot with the 2nd worst made hand in poker? I don't understand. If you mean you will raise call pre because you'll crush any overpair if you hit your set, I would refer to your own previous post saying you only hit set 11.8% of the time, which does not justify a call here with 88BB effective stacks when you need to call 8/8.5BB pre. And don't forget the times where:

-You'll hit your set on QK3 rainbow type board, crushed against a higher set (about 1% of the time)
-You'll hit your set on any monochrome board, where you could not only already be against higher set, but also against a made flush (AKs AQs)/high FD where you're not in the best shape (about 1% of the time)
-You'll hit set vs made straight, T2P+ str draw, T2p + combo flush/straight draw, T2P into higher full house.... (About... IDK, 2, 3% of the time, maybe?

Your 11.8% just turned to <8%. That's about 33% less. Fold pre.

Part 2 - And overbetting turn will get you action by what exactly, on what types of board, and how often? There is a reason we don't overbet turns and rivers for value every time we hit a nice hand: you'll make (too) many hands you beat fold, and lose tons of value, making your preflop call even worse because you just destroyed your implied odds, as well as increasing your reverse implied odds, as obvs hands that beat you will happily pay your overbet.

Now please don't misrepresent what i'm saying here, I am absolutely positive you WILL stack you opponent sometimes, all I'm saying is that it's not profitable, and you'll find spots on top of spots in NL2 where you'll make 10 times more money than here long term.

Fold Pre.

Part 1: I think you misread the hand I wrote as an example :). Your first message quoted me in a post where I talked about r/c preflop 33 Vs a 8-8.5bb 3bet 100 deep. I agree that in the hand of OP, 33 is an easy fold.

Part 2 : You contradict yourself. You said we can't bluff at NL2, yet you are certain that people overfold to overbets, did you just find a way to bluff at these stakes then?

Btw for me it's irrelevant that there are other spots where you can make 10x more, you make 10x more money with AA than many other hands, does that mean you should fold any hand that has on average a winrate 10x smaller or more than AA? Absolutely not. I think this logic is flawed sure if you play an MTT where you can bust it's probably better to take a low variance approach if you absolutely crush the field but that does not apply to cash games

Edit: In a cash game hand, we should be concerned about making profitable moves and that's it, it does not matter if there are other situations that are more simple and more profitable

Originally posted by Swish29
Part 1: I think you misread the hand I wrote as an example :). Your first message quoted me in a post where I talked about r/c preflop 33 Vs a 8-8.5bb 3bet 100 deep. I agree that in the hand of OP, 33 is an easy fold.

Part 2 : You contradict yourself. You said we can't bluff at NL2, yet you are certain that people overfold to overbets, did you just find a way to bluff at these stakes then?

Btw for me it's irrelevant that there are other spots where you can make 10x more, you make 10x more money with AA than many other hands, does that mean you should fold any hand that has on average a winrate 10x smaller or more than AA? Absolutely not. I think this logic is flawed sure if you play an MTT where you can bust it's probably better to take a low variance approach if you absolutely crush the field but that does not apply to cash games

Edit: In a cash game hand, we should be concerned about making profitable moves and that's it, it does not matter if there are other situations that are more simple and more profitable

Hey man, thanks for giving me some exercise, much appreciated

Part 1 - My bad then, we agree, so that's the end of this one.

Part 2 -

1- Show me where in this thread have I exactly said "you cannot bluff at NL2". If you're going to paraphrase what I've written above, at least be accurate. That is certainly not what I said.
2- Let's fold everything that's 10 times less profitable than AA", you say? Man, that's some bald strawman argument you're making there. You go ahead and play just like that and we'll talk about your winnings in 50k hands ok? And don't forget that only playing the nuts makes you VERRRRRY exploitable, which will makes about 0 of your plays profitable.
3 - I agree that all that matters in cash is making profitable plays. That being said, OP's hand this is not one of them, so what's your point exactly?
4 - Even if I'm wrong and this is a profitable play, then it's soooooo thin that I'd rather focus my efforts in enhancing my plays in spots where fixing mistakes will increase my BB/100 significantly, not spend 1h thinking about if 33 against SB raise 88BB deep is a call or not so my winrate over 10M hands shifts from 20BB/100 to 20.01BB/100. I'll adress these spots when I play real poker, in NL 25+.

Looks like we're in for a few more episodes ♦

1: Ok

2.1: You didn't exactly say "you cannot bluff at NL2", only "Bluffing in NL2 is very, very, very, verrrrryyyy bad", "do NOT bluff in NL2" and "Do not bluff.", so while I didn't exactly quote you the first, you're playing with words aren't you? Quite toxic/not constructive
2.2: I specifically said that it was not correct to fold things that are 10x less profitable than AA. I used it as a counter-argument to "spots in NL2 where you'll make 10 times more money than here", to illustrate that it should not matter, but you look like you agree with that so you misread my post I guess.
2.3: Irrelevant argument. I can say that in CG we should go for the most +EV play in each hand, even in a thread where we think OP didn't play his hand in the most +EV way, what is the problem?
2.4: I said in my first post that I thought 33 would be a fold in the hand of OP, the only thing I did was to contest the "Call 20 Rule" by giving another example, to illustrate why I thought this rule was too nitty. That being said, I agree that massive leaks should be addressed before making tiny adjustments, good luck with that.

Looks like we're not.

I will stop wasting my time trying to reason with you since you keep taking my words out of context, and now you also add disrespectful comments such as "toxic", which I must say is quite displeasing.

Good luck to you at the tables and all the best, Mr Swish29.