I think that this hand is not just about the river, it is about both the flop and the turn. pre-flop obv standard and flop is fine but remember we can also be mixing in both x raises and x calls with this combo at some frequency, and especially with AA as it is the most in-vulnerable over pair. and on the turn we can mix between x raise/call (based on villains float bet sizing) and more medium c bet and then over bet. I think this combo is very good to get tricky with and mix in a check at some point in the hand, to let villain value own himself with Qx, keep all of those gut shots and open enders in his range, and not condense his range and keep our range very wide and capped looking.
also we are 100 bigs effective at the start of the hand, so we have to be pretty careful about just lumping in 100 blinds when villain can have sets and 2 pairs very easily on this board. so I think the mistake you made was over-valuing your over pair because the board looks very dry, which it is, but these aren't 3 bet pot ranges so he can have many more nutted hands on this board than would be the case in a 3 bet pot.
ott I am on board with the exploitative fold, unless he is some kinda spewy reg who may be raising Qx here to get cheap showdown cos you have so many draws. I mean, he clearly has Q9 or some flopped set that slow played the flop. on the river easy fold, it's pretty hard to even think up of a bluff that he would have, 64o with a diamond?? I dunno.
turn could explo fold. river snap fold.
Dec. 14, 2018 | 5:55 p.m.
ItsPokaBruv completely agree. I think this line is extremely under-bluffed, and even if it wasn't, does he even have enough combos in his pre-flop flatting range to bluff this line with?? I doubt it. AJo will be mixing between flat and 3 bet pre-flop, i'd say around 50% of the time for each, but he may lean towards flatting this hand 100% of the time because the weakest player is in the bb so he wants to let him in to the pot as well.
as you say, ATo is never gonna lead the flop unless you are some kind of sick GTO bot who wants to have enough bluffs when the turn brings a heart and the river reduces your bluffing combo's even further by giving you a pair and thus decreasing your bluffing combos by 25%, which will not allow you to have a sufficient number of bluffs to get called by bluff-catchers, or even 2nd nut flushes. but obviously this is not the case, because he is a legit reg and regs do not lead 2nd pair 3 ways in to 2 pretty un-capped ranges which both contain a ton of top pairs, some over-pairs as well as some set's and 2 pairs.
so clearly you want to be a little more polarized with your leading range, hands that can't really x call call or x raise but have decent blockers that interact with the flop fairly well as well as can on future streets. you can also mix in some hands like 44 in to this range as well, because sb doesn't want to do a ton of x raising here because:
1-betting ranges are going to be very tight because the pot is 3 ways
2-sb has hardly any nut combos-44 and a little KTs and that's probably it
3-sb has many middle strength hands, so we would have to heavily mix between bet and x with our sets and 2 pairs otherwise our x calling range is going to be extremely weak
4-we have some hands that want to get value on the flop so that it doesn't go xxx but aren't strong enough to x raise, for example a hand like KQ and then we have our draws like flush draws, straight draws etc which don't really wanna x raise either because they would prefer to lead in to a 50% bb calling range and a 45% btn opening range as opposed to a tight c betting range from the button as well as the occasional bb leading range which is also going to be very condensed towards value hands as well as large combo draws.
so I like the sb lead, sometimes though not always. because lets say we always lead AhJx and never x call with it, then when the turn comes a heart and the river comes a brick then we can never have any Ahx bluffs to either OB jam with or x jam with, so villain could exploitably bet/fold all of his flushes if we were only bluffing with our nut blocker or the nut flush (because we have 0 bluffing combos in our x call range.)
so clearly you need to mix these hands in to both a donking range, a x calling range and also a x raising range. although the x raising range would be my lowest frequency play and I would hardly have one on this board, for the reasons I mentioned.
now let's do some math-if villain has 3 combos of AhJx (although this is going to be mixed both pre and post-flop) IP needs 38% equity to call, so we can't have more than 5 value combos otherwise we are under-bluffing. so there A2hh, A3hh, A5hh, A6hh, A7hh and then A9hh. OOP will not have AJhh/AQhh/AKhh in his pre-flop range, because the bb isn't so bad as to start flatting close to 100% of your continuing range, he's actually not much worse than most of the regs. so that's 6 combinations, and you can see that 0human want's to actually have one of these side cards instead of the Kh. Kx7h< will not open pre-flop, so in terms of bluff-catchers that are not flushes then I have to give him immense credit because imo this is the nut bluff-catcher and maybe he identified that he doesn't have any weaker KxXh combos in his range by the river.
so if Flying has his 3 bluffing combos (AhJx) and then 5 value combos (A2s,A3s,A5s,A6s,A7s) then this call will be break even. and both of us were actually wrong. however, that is if he ALWAYS bluffs this hand, he is always going to be jamming on the river if he has the nuts, but he will not always be jamming river with his bluffs because people randomize for bluffs on various streets, and especially on the river so it is pretty much best case scenario that he has sufficient bluffs.
so i'd still fold, and wait for a hand like K7hh, just to make sure we are calling sometimes and maybe once in a blue moon he ends up over-valuing his hand and jamming a Q high flush. and then our nut bluff-catching hands would be 76hh or 65hh, which reduce his value combo's further and would lead him to be over-bluffing is he always bluffed his AJ combinations.
tbh I don't even think we need to continue Humans hand ott, he lead 3 ways and then over-bet the turn, we get to continue fairly tight on the flop and very tight ott, so i'd continue with flushes and sets and then just call my flushes with good blockers every so often otr. this spot comes up so infrequently, so even if we are folding 80% of the time on the river it would not be a problem and you would not be getting exploited.
Dec. 13, 2018 | 6:25 p.m.
tbf there is also practically 0 high stakes of 25/50+ 6 max just now, and I and quite a few others requested these 6 max videos so I think he was trying out something a bit different and because there was a demand for this content. he has probably 100 HU video's and i'm sure he will go back to that format but this was requested and was very enjoyable imo. personally i'd like him to do a mix of both in the future but of course that is entirely up to him so i'll watch whatever i'm given xD
Dec. 12, 2018 | 5:53 p.m.
would it be possible for you to do a couple of theory videos?? I mean, from a personal standpoint I love these because I play 6 max cash and play with some of these guys, but your analysis is excellent in game to the extent that I feel like I am almost watching a theory video when you are doing a live play. so I can only imagine what one of your video's dedicated solely to this would be like.
Dec. 11, 2018 | 1:54 p.m.
I think that most people actually prefer theory videos to regular live play, it forces people to think outside the box again and not just watch somebody play without any understanding why they are doing certain plays. for example if you check AK on A98r in game I bet people would be like wtf are you doing and maybe you would give a brief reason why but that the majority of us wouldn't fully conceptualise why you are doing so.
where as you break it down in a theory video like this one and now and the viewers are appreciative of the different lines they can take and how maybe just c betting 1/4p on every board in a 3 bet pot might not be the Highest EV line.
+1 to more theory vids in the future from you!
Dec. 11, 2018 | 1:50 p.m.
Wallmonger nice reply as well. I am in too many conversations with you simultaneously but I agree with your post so I am not going to quote any more of it :P haha.
completely agree, if we have two huge calling station fishes then it should be slightly higher EV to c bet QT than it would be to x. but until I know that, I would still always x this hand because even if I know they are both fish I do not know if they are bluffy fish, station fish or nitty fish. and only vs station fish would c betting this hand be higher EV than checking imo. so because 66% of the time they would be one of the two other categories of fish, I would deviate towards always checking this hand and then betting hands like bottom/middle sets, AT/KT and then over pairs of course.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 5:40 p.m.
yeah that's true, they are probably opening too wide at this stake and thus defending too wide vs 3 bets. but this would be extremely opponent dependent, if he is a 17/15 and folds 80% to 3 bets then you can pretty much rule out all of those hands including even 77 perhaps. so this hand hinges a lot on whether or not villain is wide or tight in his pre-flop ranges.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 5:35 p.m.
yeah you get in some very weird turn spots tbh, like what exactly do you do on when a A-J hits on the turn?? and I do not have any specific answer for that. but lets so we x called then villain is going to be barrelling those cards extremely aggressively so it's not as if we would be getting to realise much equity when over cards come anyways. I think I would lean towards x raising this vs an opponent who likes to double barrel at a high frequency, and mainly just x call vs somebody who is more passive on the turn and let's us realise our flopped equity with our open ender.
I think if he bet/called then I would assume that almost all of the over pairs would now be out of his range (although in theory they should not be) but people do not like to slow play when there is a flush draw on board, and when you will not be x raise folding with your top pair. so I would probably jam on any 9,7,6,2 or heart. and mainly trap when we bink a turned straight. would also sometimes jam on a J turn as he will bet/call AK/AQ but not AJ imo (although of course some villains will, but not nearly as often as the other hands) so he doesn't have that many turned top pairs on the J compared to an A/K/Q.
and if we xr to $12 then there will be around $38 behind so we could actually have a smaller sizing and then an all in sizing. think I would choose this hand in the smaller sizing a lot on the turn, especially on turns such as a 9/8/3/2 and then just jam on a 7/6 as most of his hands are A highs which we want to protect from and we have equity even if he has a hand like top set.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 5:33 p.m.
We would dominate their top pair hands often here so there's more
incentive to bet. Also, by checking you allow villain to put in some
spots where you don't want to be and sometimes force you to fold the
best hand. I would prefer to bet 2 streets and then fold to a big
river bet than, check and guess all the way down
we dominate a couple of combos such as JT and T9 and perhaps T8 but we still lose to AT and KT. so around 50% of the Tx that are calling us on the flop we lose to. and some of the weaker Tx will be folded on subsequent streets so we are now rapidly heading towards value-owning ourselves. and we are also 3 ways, our flop c-betting range cannot be as wide and as aggressive than it would be if we were HU. we are also OOP to the button who has position on us on all 3 streets, should be play them.
we also lose to sets, 2 pairs and the odd over pair such as JJ that the button chose to flat with. so pretty quickly you can see that c betting QT 3 ways and then betting either flop/turn or flop/river is pretty dicey. and vs a raise we pretty much just have to fold straight away, which is a disaster when the bb has a hand like an open ender or something.
you are basically saying that you are betting to avoid them betting and you being put in to a bluff catching spot, well sometimes you have to get in to tough spots in poker because that is where your true edge will come from, when you can work them out better than your opponent.
also, if we start betting almost all of our Tx on the flop that leaves our turn range extremely weak when the flop goes xxx. bb can lead wider, such as hands as weak as second pair, and we cannot delayed c bet almost at all because we have 0 value hands unless we bink something on the turn.
and once we x back villains will be more suspicious of our delayed turn bets because they will think we will bet all of our strong hands on the flop, thus increasing the likelihood that they are going to call us twice with hands as weak as 2nd or even 3rd pair.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 4:30 p.m.
yeah I know it sucks to xr this hand and get blown off of our equity, but considering how wide the villain is 3 betting, and subsequently how often he is going to be c-betting (based on his pre-flop tendencies) then he is most likely doing so far too often. and then way to penalise this and not let him print money is to incorporate some x raises in to our strategy. I mean, even the most aggro of maniacs isn't going to just bet/3 bet jam QJ no FD so even folding him off of a hand like that is a very big win for us.
but with this hand if we are to xr it should be at mixed frequencies and of course not 100% of the time.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 4:21 p.m.
yeah agreed. I generally would not have a limping strategy at these stakes due to the high rake, but vs somebody who is 3 betting 38% of the time I think that you are going to have a higher EV with your overall range developing such a strategy. because if he is raising so much over limps, and you are limp-raising, then you will be folding or he will be folding a bunch anyways and you avoid the post-flop rake. so it's not even as if it goes xx very often and you get penalised with the rake because he is so aggro.
vs somebody passive, or vs anybody playing some sort of normal 3 betting strategy, then I would only rfi at these stakes.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 4:17 p.m.
no way. and on the turn I am never, ever, ever checking this hand back, you can check back a hand like TT/99 or even AA occasionally but should not be even considering checking back with KK. and especially at nl2. it is slightly better for utg+1 but let's remember that opening T9s or 87s should not even be a thing from that position. so you are really only concerned about 88 or a flopped set but those combo's are far too infrequent to consider bet/folding. and you are also getting excellent pot-odds to call.
I like the line, and please don't look for reasons to fold and worse case scenario's when you have such a strong hand, because this will leave you to be an over-folder in pretty much every single spot in the future and leave you with a pretty weak strategy.
nicely played hand and move on to the next one!
Dec. 10, 2018 | 2:29 p.m.
if villain is 3 betting 38%, albeit over a small sample size, then I would start including some limps in to my range and I would personally limp/raise this hand. because of course you cannot 4 bet this hand because you are burning a ton of equity when you get jammed on, and you are not pushing any sort of equity advantage/have poor blockers to 4 bet a hand like this. so I would develop more of a polarized rfi strategy vs somebody 3 betting at such a high frequency, and limp a bunch of my hands that can either limp/call or limp/raise.
the great thing about limp raising this hand is he is probably gonna raise like 70% vs your limps, and he is gonna end up folding over half of this range, if not even more, and your hand plays very well post-flop and you can rep Ax/Kx boards, and when you make strong hands on low boards your hand is extremely disguised.
as played I like the raise/call. flop I like the x/call but we should sometimes be x raising also. on the turn I hate the lead and would much prefer to either x call or x raise. personally I would just x call this hand ott as we want some strong hands on brick run outs, and our hand is pretty in-vulnerable having the FD as well. so x the turn. on the river I think it's probably just a bet/fold because I doubt any regs at this stake are even remotely balanced with their river jamming ranges, nor do I think he is ever jamming worse unless he's an idiot.
you fucked up on the turn though, and then this mistake compounded itself on the river when you make a flush and have to consider bet/folding.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 2:21 p.m.
I prefer to check this hand and then bet with AT/KT so that we make sure that we are dominating when the fish also have top pairs. because they will play extremely face-up on the turn, especially when the pot is multi-way, so we can just exploit them harder on turns/rivers when it goes xxx than we can by c-betting this hand, imo. and we aren't really concerned about any turn cards, the K we block a bunch of the Kx combos and the Ax turn leaves villains playing extremely passively so you aren't likely to get bluffed off of your hand ever unless they have you beat.
as played I like the bet/fold and I like your line.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 2:12 p.m.
well he is playing extremely exploitably and you can pretty easily counter him but be prepared for him and his ego to fight back at you when you do so. but this should add even more EV to your game plan because he will probably end up getting emotional and that will cloud his judgment and make him play worse.
pre-flop, play tighter, whether that is either opening or 3 betting, because he is more likely to be cold 4 betting than most regulars so marginally +EV 3 bets (for example a hand like 65s) now probably become -EV because he is too out of line 4 betting and of course 65s is an equity dog vs every single 4 betting range and your 3 bet gets folded to less often than when a table is playing more in line.
you should pretty much see this guy as a potential fish if you are to play the correct way, because he isn't going to alter his strategy and will just start punting off to you if you adjust correctly. vs his 3 betting/squeezing range you can start 4 betting hands that would normally always call vs a 4 bet (for example 99-JJ) for value and then just call if he jams because he will probably punt in A5s. you can also flat hands like big pairs and AK in order to back-raise vs his 3 bets. if he is more of a folder vs 4 bets then just start 4 bet bluffing him a bunch, with low suited Ax etc. but personally I prefer to widen my value range and not really 4 bet bluff these guys too often because, from experience, they are happy to get in to ego wars with wide ranges and less happy when you just 4 bet snap them off with 99 and they jam in some crappy hand.
post-flop just raise him a ton, I would start off with a linear and value heavy range and then adjust if he starts to fold too often to you and then develop more of a polarized value/air range. also you just have to call down with very weak hands every so often, so that he knows he can't just double barrel on 8xxKx and you are going to fold 99 either on the turn or on the river putting him on AK. sometimes you just gotta make a stand and call him down with bottom pair so that he knows he can't just bet with impunity vs you and get away with it.
but, THE MAIN THING IS, focus on your own game. focus on playing every pot you can to the best of your ability, and then just adjust when he enters pots. don't start altering your entire strategy in order to try and get the best of him and win some pots vs him so you feel good about yourself and like you have just one-upped him. play solid and without ego and then just watch as he punts off to you.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 2:04 p.m.
yeah I have no idea tbh but I can imagine it went down that way so seems like a waste of time to review the FT.
I thought I seen you go deep in it so that would be more than good enough to only show your run imo.
Dec. 10, 2018 | 12:53 a.m.
yeah Anzar definitely is the spot in those games, although I don't even think he's that bad from what I've seen of him tbh.
Munez Star is a reg.
bottom right Gordon is a reg and I think that Dangerblood is a fish although he may not be.
Dec. 9, 2018 | 5:15 p.m.
yeah pre-flop is a fold. on the turn I like the bet because nobody at these stakes is gonna defend their x back ranges properly, although vs somebody better this would make a good turn x call or even a thin turn xr to exploit delayed c bets with a hand such as TT.
as I was saying they won't be defending vs turn probes properly, so when you get raised I would already be very concerned and prob just assume he has 44 or some combo draw (although they are still more likely to just call imo.) you still have to call because you have your open ender and if he has KQhh or whatever he is prob just gonna shut down on bricks because he has a FD and people don't like to bluff with FD's.
on the river you're nowhere near the top of your range, you are actually near the bottom of it. you will have some flushes, perhaps some straights, some boats and some stronger trips. as you say, villain is almost certainly under-bluffing here so I like to fold. on the turn you should think about having a 3 betting range though, because even if he has 44 or a bluff you have all the nut hands in your range and he doesn't-77/66/85s/53s etc. but this hand I would be pure bet/call ott, however.
turn fine. river fold.
Dec. 3, 2018 | 10:25 p.m.
yeah i'd agree about pre-flop I think you could even argue to raise to 6x because if pots are going 5 ways then clearly not many people are worried about calling vs your 4x iso and are obviously all playing far too wide. think I would raise 6x and incorporate some limping in to my range, because a hand like 66 doesn't really make any sense to iso with if you are gonna go 5 ways because you are just putting in 4 bb's when you are gonna have to x fold 90% of the time on the flop. and you can comfortably limp/call a hand like this but vs a 3 bet your hand is gonna have to fold unless its too small. and of course you wanna mix in some traps so when somebody iso's and 4 other guys call you can make a large raise and scoop up the dead money.
as played I would probably just end up checking range on every single flop when it goes 5 ways. it's too difficult to balance your ranges properly and even a hand as strong as QQ on this flop is in a very tough spot vs a raise because ranges are gonna be so tight once you bet in to 4 other guys. and then on the turn villains will have played so honestly on the flop that their ranges are now pretty much clairvoyant and you can exploit them because your range is completely uncapped.
Dec. 3, 2018 | 10:17 p.m.
oops was this hand not 3 ways?? that changes quite a lot actually. and also I didn't notice that the guy flatted from the bb with the straddle behind, so that is like he is flatting from the sb in a regular game. which means his range is significantly tighter and more pocket pair heavy, in general.
if this was HU vs a regular big blind then this hand is fine to bet, because even if in theory you should be checking it back a decent amount, villains don't find enough check raises and don't barrel enough on the turns after they do so to make it worse to bet than x. which increases the EV of betting. but in this case you are effectively playing vs a sb range, so you want to tighten up your c-betting range considerably and try to get a street closer to showdown with a hand such as this one.
doesn't really change the fact that you should still be checking back always with this hand, but if there was no straddle and you were simply HU vs a regular BB range then I don't mind this c bet tbh. i'd be even more happy to bet/fold this hand ott now, and you could also consider checking it back, but again he probably only has 87s in terms of 2 pairs that you actually beat, so I think I would still prefer to x back AK/AQ and then just bet/fold this hand and then we can stack off with our AA/88/77/A8/A7 those combos will be more than enough because villain will be very tight x raise the flop and then x jamming the turn. we're not going to do very much betting on this turn at all vs a sb range, Axcc has no reason to bet because it isn't worried about any river, and it's difficult for AK/AQ to get value when they block top pair and unblock all sets. of course they can get a little value from JTcc but that will be betting very often ott, and when we get x jammed on it is a complete disaster. so we probably wanna be betting very polar when x to ott, i'd give us a betting range of A8/A7/88/77 and A2 and you can mix with AA, but probably still wanna mainly bet to try to get a set up vs a lower set and get value from FD's. and then 65s no clubs, and then perhaps JTs wo clubs and the off 8x/7x that we are betting because we block his sets and unblock his top pairs that are going to fold by the time we bet large on the river because our range is so value heavy.
then just x back all of the rest of our Ax, our KK/QQ with a club and our flush draws and T9. that's the way i'd generally play this turn spot, and it doesn't leave us up to turn exploitation because our betting range is very strong and polarized and doesn't mind getting x raised because we have easy decisions when this happens.
Nov. 30, 2018 | 1:53 a.m.
yeah on the flop this hand should probably be bet 0% of the time, you are 3 ways and OOP to the button so you should tighten up your c betting range significantly and focus on hands that play better on turns/rivers as opposed to hands that need some immediate protection/are pushing equity vs both ranges on the flop.
as played I would bet/fold this hand. it is your weakest Ax and doesn't have any kind of backdoors and can't suck out on A8/A7. so I would much prefer to bet/call AK/AQ with a club because they both have backdoor flush draws and can suck out on the aforementioned 2 pair combos. but again, I would c betting this board at a very low frequency so I wouldn't even bet these hands the vast majority of the time.
once you hit 2 pair and he checks to your then I think you are still definitely better to bet this hand, you can check back AK/AQ but this hand needs a ton of protection and gets sucked out on on a ton of river. we can also now get value from a 87 type hand that is now a little scared. I would probably just exploitably bet/fold because, as you say, the double x raise is a significantly under-bluffed (in terms of combo draws) and is just value like A8/A7 and sets.
turn-I like the bet, but facing the turn x jam just exploitably fold.
Nov. 29, 2018 | 12:20 p.m.
David Alford you seem to be the one taking it personally if you think that by me saying that you have to do some thinking for yourself means that you are unsubscribing from the thread and I can no longer comment on your posts lol.
BTW, you have to assume one player or the other is a fish as the 3bet
size is sub-optimal. Either OP is not a strong reg and doesn't know
what stronger strategies look like or OP is targeting the CO being a
fish with his small size 3bet. Either way, one-way or the other CO
should be playing K6s even if it does not show up in equilibrium.
you insulted the OP and basically called him a weak reg, but when you are even slightly questioned you get butt-hurt and unsubscribe from the thread?? very mature. you should learn something from OP who simply posted a funny meme in response and laughed off the 'insult.'
anyways good luck to you and no hard feelings :)
Nov. 28, 2018 | 4 p.m.
David Alford we are having a poker discussion you cannot whip out your equations and sims mid-game and look up the line you are supposed to take. you actually have to do some thinking for yourself and what I said in my last comment was with both sims and logic from playing applied. where as you just seem to be saying PIO says x or y so I will follow what it says without actually working out why it says that.
for example you said that Ax/Kx blockers are good to bluff with because PIO uses these combos to bluff with but you didn't actually debunk my points about why they aren't particularly good blockers?? and that it is merely because we run out of bluffs on this run out so just have to bluff with hands that aren't particularly great hands to bluff with.
but yeah I agree this has been a good conversation and I have enjoyed the back and forth with you :)
Nov. 28, 2018 | 2:34 p.m.
hahah rekt. yeah don't worry about what he said the EV difference between various 3 betting sizes will be marginal at best and shouldn't make any difference to your win rate. if you wanna 3 bet larger at 200 bigs you can but then you have to 3 bet an even tighter range. for example if you want to you could 3 bet 6x vs the original raiser but this will leave you with either an extremely tight range that does poorly on a number of board textures. or it will leave you very vulnerable to 4 bets as you are investing too many bb's with too weak of a range.
tbh I don't really change my 3 bet sizing when we get deeper I don't really think it makes any difference really. you cannot negate the positional disadvantage regardless of your pre-flop sizing so it doesn't matter a whole lot imo. and when you start to 3 bet huge you leak EV from other parts of your ranges-for example hands that used to 3 bet for 4.5x can no longer 3 bet for 6x and now you have to fold them or call and play OOP with rake, and now your range is much tighter and more face up on a number of board textures. so I would rather have a more protected and balanced range, and not be so susceptible to 4 bets or cold 4 bets and play, for the most part, the same range that I would do at 100 bb's.
Nov. 28, 2018 | 2:25 p.m.
I have a 512gb server atm so I will throw a 200bb COvsBB solve in
there soon. My guess is K8s is a pure call because the 3bet size is
small and our defending range should be wider IP than that of 100bb
because we get to use the position and stack depth to our advantage.
At 100bb K9s is 0EV COvsBB with this size 3bet. Suited Aces and Kings
are going to be the hands that benefit the most from IP 3bets so I
would imagine that our calling range should contain more than just
I use Snowie so if you wanna see the calling ranges then just put the 3 bet sizing and the stack size in to that and check out the results. we talked about how AQo wasn't a 3 bet at these stack depths, so why exactly would IP start defending even wider when OOP has an even tighter range than before?? if you start calling all these crappy K8s etc vs a 3 bet from a tight range then you are just gonna end up making a top pair that is dominated by both AK/KQ, or some crappy second pair that is probably never going to show down for any EV at all (as OOP will play QQ/JJ/TT etc very passively on many board textures.)
I think you are over-estimating the power of suitedness at 200 bigs. you don't make a flush very often, and when you do this will not make up for the EV loss you had when you flopped top pair with K8 on Kxx and called multiple barrels. also, OOP can make very large bets post-flop and then you don't even get to utilise your position nor realise your equity with your flush draw.
likewise with those crappy Axs you just end up making weak top pair which, again, shows down for low EV and when you start calling multiple barrels you again are facing a range built heavily around better Ax.
from my experience these hands don't really play any better at 200 bb's than they do at 100 bb's, except from now we can 4 bet a little more aggressively with some of these hands and trick our opponents on certain board textures (for example we get to 4 bet 65s sometimes at 200 bigs eff because we are very unlikely to get jammed on.)
This is absolutely incorrect. Actually these are the most relevant
blockers. And that was shown to be true in the solve.
no it wasn't because they were good blockers, it was because we ran out of bluffs so we had to bluff jam some hands that would show down for pretty much 0EV. otherwise villain can just exploitably fold everything but a set. because, as you said, it doesn't like raising flopped pairs on the flop with the intention of bluffing them on later streets. so we get to the river with very few bluffs, so it makes sense to bluff jam with fairly poor blockers because we just do not have any other hands to choose from.
it doesn't make sense that Ax/Kx of clubs would make for good blockers because our river jam is intending to fold out AA or KK, at least at some decent kind of frequency.
Yes, you are right on the nail here and now contradicting your
previous statement that "the Ax/Kx blockers are pretty irrelevant." A
lot of his value range does contain an Ace or a King.
I am not contradicting myself?? because OOP has 3 bet pre, c bet the flop and called vs a raise and then called vs a turn double barrel. so it is reasonable to assume that pretty much all of villains range is at least top pair top kicker or Ax flush draw. so when we have the Ac it's not as if we block OOP value range, because he isn't calling any worse hands ott than AQ so we just block more river folding hands than we do when we have a hand such as QT (which blocks QQ and unblocks KK/AA folds.)
What straights does he have here? And yes, he does have slightly
higher percentage of QQ or 88 in his range compared to the rest of his
range but QQ and 88 make up such a small portion of his range.
one combo of T9cc. they don't make up a small portion of OOP's range when ranges have already condensed so much starting from pre-flop and continuing through to the flop/turn/river because of the action sequences.
let's say for simplicity he has the 6 combos of sets, then he has the 6 combos of AA and 6 combos of KK. then 1 combo of T9cc. and i'm guessing that AQo is only 3 bet sometimes so maybe he has half of the 12 AQ combos so another 6 combos of that. and then the off KQcc and then some hands that are always folding to the river jam like A5cc.
so he has 7 nut combos (sets+1 straight), 12 overpair combos, 6 AQ combos and then maybe another 2 Qxcc combos. so of his realistic river call downs almost 1/4 of his range is the nuts. then, if IP is somehow balanced here, he can just mix the rest of these hands and call them at some frequency. because they all probably have a similar EV to call down (almost 0 probably.)
so if this is OOP's potential river calling range then having the Ax/Kx is not very good, and isn't a good blocker it's just a hand that is 0EV to x down and IP needs to find some bluffs so has to sometimes jam with a fairly poor bluffing combo.
I have to disagree until sims can be produced that reproduce this. At
deeper stack depths our range should start becoming wider In-Position
as we get to use our position to apply leverage which leads to the
rest of our range being able to realize more equity. There are many
videos where you hear good players on RIO say "we aren't deep enough
here to call profitably" or "if we were a little deeper we could
call". The reason they use that language is described at the beginning
of this paragraph.
it shouldn't become wider if OOP is significantly tightening up his 3 betting range. it doesn't make sense to start calling K6s when OOP is only 3 betting AKo+,JJ+ and then some suited Ax. because then we just end up with a very weak range post-flop that has to over-bluff in many scenarios because OOP's range is so much stronger and we are trying to move them off of overpair's, which is never particularly exciting to attempt to do.
I think you are very much over-estimating the value of the suitedness of these hands, because unless these hands make a flush, they very rarely show down for any significant portion of the pot and do not play well as barrels (like a hand like 54s would on certain board textures.)
I've played a ton of very deep stacked poker at 500z, and I doubt that weakish Axs/Kxs are making much more money than if I had just folded them to the 3 bet. they are much better as 4 bet bluffs, and then widen your calling range with some lower suited connectors or some lower pocket pairs that you couldn't call at only 100 bigs (for example 22-44 btn vs the blinds.) every half decent player is able to recognise that you will have A TON of flushes on 3 to a flush board textures, so even if you hit your flush you are pretty unlikely to stack him. it's much better to fight fire with fire and if he has a very strong 3 betting range then you have a very strong flatting range. then you can apply a ton of pressure when required, but you have a strong range in which to do it with and not just your entire button opening range that you decided to flat because you have position and you are deep.