6$ Bet 3bet line gone bad?

[cntgetmedown]

$3/$6 No Limit Holdem
4 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com

Stacks:
CO ($782.95)
BTN ($899.40)
Hero ($653)
BB ($798)

Pre-Flop: ($9, 4 players) Hero is SB A 4
CO calls $6, BTN raises to $18, Hero calls $15, BB calls $12, CO calls $12

Flop: 10 7 8 ($72, 4 players)
Hero bets $46, 2 folds, BTN raises to $120

The CO is the mark at the table, but the BB also doesn't seem to be a fudamentally sound player either. The button has been playing reasonably well so far. This is the first session I've played with him. He's likely to be a regular transferring to the site.
I've posted a hand similiar to this in the past, but as this session came again today it made me wonder how much foldequity we actually have in this spot. I estimated my equity when called to be roughly 32% against a resonably strong range:

Board: Ts 7s 8c
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 31.354% 30.58% 00.77% 6055 153.00 { As4s }
Hand 1: 68.646% 67.87% 00.77% 13439 153.00 { TT, 88-77, Qs9s, Js9s, T8s, 9s8s, 96s, 8s6s, Js9c }

In this scenario we would need roughly 40% fold equity to break even on a shove. I won't go as far as saying that villain is never bluffing here, but I feel that his bluffing frequency will be less than that. Also given the flop texture and the fact that I lead into some fairly loose players it seems less plausible for villain to be raising wider both for value with an overpair or as bluff. I would be less concerned on a Ts7s2x texture.
What are your thoughts? Would you propose alternative lines, if your not shoving what is your plan for the rest of the hand?
Thanks in advance.

disclaimer: I can see how this hand may seem trivial to you, but I like talking about the trivial spots now and then to make sure I haven't developed any bad habits.

[fearless]

not result oriented, but i dont like the lead. you are first to act relative position wise, but from there you have a very clear decision to just call try to spike and hope one of the fish has a hand their not getting away from. with your line the other regular get to see what you and both the fish does before he has to act. i dont think you have much fold equity with the lead either on that board, sure you can say youre gonna bet the turn/riv and make them fold every onepair+gutty type hand, but i think thats just too optimistic when youre starting out the hand leading into 3 players.

if what you wrote means he has to fold 40% or more to make a shove profitable, id fold

[cntgetmedown]

Originally Posted by fearless

not result oriented, but i dont like the lead. you are first to act relative position wise, but from there you have a very clear decision to just call try to spike and hope one of the fish has a hand their not getting away from. with your line the other regular get to see what you and both the fish does before he has to act. i dont think you have much fold equity with the lead either on that board, sure you can say youre gonna bet the turn/riv and make them fold every onepair+gutty type hand, but i think thats just too optimistic when youre starting out the hand leading into 3 players.

if what you wrote means he has to fold 40% or more to make a shove profitable, id fold

My flop lead is for value. In this instance my aim is to try to build the pot with a draw to the nuts with the two weak players ahead of me. I agree that tripple barreling the weak players is optimistic, but I do think it is a viable option against the regular. That being said I don't think it is necessary to turn a profit on a lead here. Therein I also see value in leading a more balanced rather than polarized range from an overall gameplan standpoint.
So if I am interpreting your post right your saying we should just check and call if someone bets right?

[fearless]

yea. i mean, the reason you didnt 3bet pre is because you wanted the fish to stay in right. they will almost always check to the raiser in multiway pots and i think its gonna get checked through a lot, but if not id call to keep the fish in. whoever bets at this pot surely has a pretty strong range anyway.

i dont get how your lead is for value and not a semibluff.. i like a lead better if youre deeper. i agree that its good to have a balanced leading range, but in this spot it doesnt do you much good as its going to be perceived very strong anyway.

[steel108]

I don't know if I like the lead here. Hero has bad relative position, but he has a nice non-made hand. You can lead here for value (getting calls by worst draws?), but what about checking. If it checks around, it's not a bad thing. If the OG pfr bets, we can call and let the fish come along with his crap.

If Hero had JT or something, leading is obviously superior to check/call. In this case, I would prefer getting the pot multi way in an attempt to get the fishes money. The PFR will be pretty honest on this flop and if he checks, we get to take control of the hand first to act on the turn. Leading is obviously fine, but we get put in some gross spots with a hand that we want to realize our equity with. Example: we lead, fish calls, PFR raises. This is never a bluff and now we are f'ed. BUT, if l we had JT here and the same thing happens, it's an easy fold.

I just woke up so I'm a little groggy. If something doesn't make sense, just let me know and I'll expand when I'm more awake

[Unknown Soldier]

b3b is def too thin

id check and see what happens.

[coachgp]

I think your range u gave me might be a bit off... prob would include K9ss and 95ss. I think if he doesnt have 95s, then he prob wont have the 96s combos. Add QJss, Q8ss, K8ss, 85ss prob. Maybe T7s. I'd also consider how sometimes ppl make stupid plays and raise up JJ-KK here, maybe a 98s hand.

Im on my mac so i cant stove it for ya, sorry

[cntgetmedown]

Originally Posted by fearless

i dont get how your lead is for value and not a semibluff.. i like a lead better if youre deeper. i agree that its good to have a balanced leading range, but in this spot it doesnt do you much good as its going to be perceived very strong anyway.

It is a semibluff. What I mean is that leading here with nutted draws is +ev with weak players in the pot to build the pot for when you hit and they will put in more money behind, because you allow them to compound their mistakes. The pot is already reasonably sized however, so this concept doesn't apply as much, but is not completely irrelevant. I also think there is some merit to a bet/bet/shove line here, because our perceived bluffing frequency is higher as opposed to when we play check/call/check/raise/jam. I think we also get a little more calls from their ranges on the turns, because of pair+draw type hands. Furthermore if the regular has initiative, the turn will often go checked through when we hit and we lose a little value against the upper part of the weaker players ranges, because we can only get in one more bet.
I do aknowledge that we are not pleased when it goes bet/call/raise and we can be pushed off of our equity or are forced to get it in due to pot odds, but have to do so whilst shutting out players that are more likely to make a mistake from the pot. Another disadvantage from leading is when the weaker players hit and they can raise us off of our equity. Looking back at it, I actually think that is a big factor and makes checking look more attractive to me now.

Originally Posted by coachgp

I think your range u gave me might be a bit off... prob would include K9ss and 95ss. I think if he doesnt have 95s, then he prob wont have the 96s combos. Add QJss, Q8ss, K8ss, 85ss prob. Maybe T7s. I'd also consider how sometimes ppl make stupid plays and raise up JJ-KK here, maybe a 98s hand.

Im on my mac so i cant stove it for ya, sorry

Yea, I probably did miss one or two hands. My impression was that villain was playing fairly solid though and thus I started off with a tighter range as a basis for analysis. I think he's pretty unlikely to show up with a weak range here so I think my equity is still fairly reasonable, but I agree that it may not be a bad idea to throw in one or two combos of overpairs and a combo of 98s to lighten up our equity some. 35% might be a more realistic number, it wouldn't change much though.

Thanks for all the responses guys.

[steel108]

Originally Posted by steel108

I don't know if I like the lead here. Hero has bad relative position, but he has a nice non-made hand. You can lead here for value (getting calls by worst draws?), but what about checking. If it checks around, it's not a bad thing. If the OG pfr bets, we can call and let the fish come along with his crap.

If Hero had JT or something, leading is obviously superior to check/call. In this case, I would prefer getting the pot multi way in an attempt to get the fishes money. The PFR will be pretty honest on this flop and if he checks, we get to take control of the hand first to act on the turn. Leading is obviously fine, but we get put in some gross spots with a hand that we want to realize our equity with. Example: we lead, fish calls, PFR raises. This is never a bluff and now we are f'ed. BUT, if l we had JT here and the same thing happens, it's an easy fold.

I just woke up so I'm a little groggy. If something doesn't make sense, just let me know and I'll expand when I'm more awake

Thinking about it more and more, I actually hate leading here with your hand. You are just going to be put in shitty spots. I like check/calling here. Like I said before, I know what your thinking, but you're doing it with the wrong hand in the wrong spot (at least imo). I think it's just too easy for us to get shit on and if the money goes in on this flop, chances are we will never be crushing him. There are just so much cheaper ways to realize our equity while maintaining the post size and keeping the fish in the hand. JT, etc is a good lead here with your position.