GTO Warrior

i think betting flop is fine

when you get raised on turn, jamming is the worst line imo

your getting the price to draw when he min raises you so calling seems ok

did he mean BB or bb? cause BB is twice as much so 20bb is 10BB

eh i dont even know what the difference is anymore or why ppl use the caps or lower case one

which youtubers/bloggers? put their stuff here so we can roast them

tbh 30k is enough to gauge someones winrate if they play consistent, but stuff above10bb is a stretch

You don't try to detect anything. Your hand has to be completely nutted to want to raise multiway. You have to call here even though you know the two people behind you have nothing and you can get them out with a raise while also getting value from the person putting 2 dollars in.

This is knowing that you are letting them all draw to their overs, so you will probably lose the hand on most runouts and can't call any more bets. That is the mental level you need to be on to approach these spots. You don't try to take pots right away as soon as you know you have the best hand, and you don't feel sick when you lose knowing you had the best hand because you know you played your range correctly.

Don't worry if you aren't there yet, just play and study the game more and you will improve and get there.

You hold the Ace of Hearts so he has less combos of flush draws that need to raise river to win. The ace also means he has less combos of Ax that call the flop, pick up equity on the turn, miss the river and need to raise to win.

So your hand has blockers to his bluffs, which means he is going to less combinations of hands that make good river bluff raises. Thus he is going to be weighted towards more value when he raises river.

your blocking a lot of bluffs and ppl dont attack block small beats enough so it just looks like hes raising KQ+ for value

dont even bother playing 5nl at bovada, the rate is too damn high at 5%+

the 25nl rake is normal at 4.5%, which is normal

the reason rake is important is because solvers are going to be using normal rake in its calculations as opposed to high or no rake

If I flatted pre with AK or AQ, I am never folding flop to that 1/4 cbet, so turn shoving has no fold equity here against anything but QQ/KK. Those with a spade will call, so your left with ranges here that rarely fold and mostly beat you. For those reasons I prefer checking back turn.

River is regular fold and not even an exploit one. It's not solid poker to blindly bluff catch rivers vs any sizing. There big differences in calling river with AQ KQ and QJ. Normally AQ is going to be around your worst bluff catcher in these spots, but since its blind vs blind I can see KQ being one too. But then you look at his bet size and realize you gatta nope out there with KQ as well.

Now you think about if your being super exploited, but you do have all the KJ combos and random two pairs since your range is wider, and that is enough combos to support your bluff catching. So no need to feel bad about folding QJ here if you are already opening wide in the SB.

Which solvers opt to 3bet bigger out of position? I only use Snowie and it wants to 3bet pot vs almost all sizes (exception is when someone opens for 18bb or something). If someone can screen shot a solver that says the optimal sizing is smaller IP and bigger OOP, that would be great and I would definitely reevaluate my thoughts.

My main argument is that the entire incentivization IP vs OOP is part of the human exploitative reasoning and not part of any solver algorithm. By that I mean a pure solver would put little to no emphasis on position if its just calculating max EV, or much less than a human would.

Maybe I have a 3betting approach that goes against the grain, but when I 3bet someone I don't want them to have an incentive to do anything. I am not looking to counter balance anything with position, I thinking try to put the most appropriate hands in a specific sizing is way more important that counter balancing position. Thinking this way opens a whole new dimension of 3betting, now you can 3bet small or min raise and still have reasonable ranges instead of going "well i cant 3bet small out of position hes going to just call".

Also your absolute right on my hand strength and sizing confusion. As soon as I typed it I realized how flawed it is since they are not equivalent at all. I just hoped nobody would notice lol.

Exploiting position to the max in exchange for EV. Plus its just an old habit that is hard to break out of.

I am not saying its incorrect because it certainly works. But its just easy to play against since they are literally telling you me "me bet big me want you fold". I am way more afraid of someone who has consistent 3bet sizes and knows how to 3bet normal/small out of position. Then I am forced to play very marginal hands like QJ/KJ/AT on the button for 0 to little EV where as if you bump it up to 4x+ out of position they are snap folds. On the other side if you 3bet small in position, those same 0 to little ev hands like 66-88 become easy call to bluff catch/set mine.

No, those are all terrible predetermined sizes from 10 years ago when people sucked in 3bet pots and didn't want to play in unless they had an big advantage. They wanted to to play in position so they 3bet smaller inducing more calls, and they avoided playing out of position so they 3bet bigger to force more folds.

These sizes are inconsistent and very exploitable. For example, if you 3bet a hand like 68s/K2s in the BB to 12bb vs a normal 3x BTN open, the BTN now has every incentive to 4bet every mixed hand in his range. This is because you are adding hands which are mixed call/3bet for a normal 3.5x size into a more polarized 4x range of which they do not belong.

The solution is so easy, just slam the pot button. It gives the original raiser 2:1 on his calls no matter what position they are in and no matter what size they opened to. So now instead of giving people good odds in position and bad odds out of position and having to create two range variations (multiplied by the opening sizes you encounter), you have one consistent sizing for all spots. Now your just left with the simple task of finding what hands to put in that range.

I hope the math makes sense, and its also more efficient/balanced. You don't have different preflop opening sizes depending on the strength of your hand or your position right? So why would you do it for 3bet sizes?

really cant find any major faults here other than preflop opening is too loose for that opening size

villain shouldnt be check raising his top pair here so note that, it means a river bluff is less valuable

could exploit raise turn vs the small bet as well

Brokenstars

"Opening a wider range would generally mean you open smaller at equilibrium"

I don't understand what this statement means, can you elaborate?

Does equilibrium mean 0 ev hands?

And does opening smaller at equilibrium mean you have different preflop raise sizings and raise smaller with 0 ev hand?

Bovada/Ignition

The preflop buttons are min, 3x, and pot. So its just easier for everyone to click 3x as standard even though its suboptimal. As in, tight players opening ranges that can be potted pre for 3x, and regs opening wide ranges for 3x and get pooped on by 3bets. Unless you have software, you can't get perfect preflop sizings like 2.25x.

The widest I am going is the 0 ev hands. The hands worst than 0 ev involve some that are better limped (still -ev) than raises, so having 2 opening size ranges is really poor.

Basically I am trying to put as many 0 ev hands into the widest range possible, which is forcing me to open for smaller than the standard 3x. To do this you have to open min -2.5x, which means in theory you should get 3bet a lot. But if nobody is 3betting then we still get to realize the equity of our worst hands, although in a lot of multiway spots. So I guess it comes down to how comfortable you are playing wide ranges multiway as opposed to getting 3bet more and playing tight ranges in big heads up pots.

im just kidding

nobody bots on WPN, Nagy banned them all xD

i use the darkest felt and background color possible so that my bot can screengrab the table easier due to higher contrast

Yes you should slam dunk cbet. You already know people are calling too wide preflop to defend this flop when you see Ax and all pairs. Optimal play involves 3betting a polar range of Ax preflop, and calling with strong pairs. If they show up here with suited Ax, broadways, all pairs, then their range is too wide and you just put in flop turn cbets to punish.

All these solvers can be stripped down to which search algorithms and decision trees they use. For example, a basic equity solver like PokerStove uses Monte Carlo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonteCarlotree_search

Notice on that page there are 20+ algorithms linked in the wiki, all of which are viable and used in software. All the solvers out there are using one of these variations, or they have tweaked it for their own IP. Some are faster than others, some go wide, and some go deep. So unless you know how they work and the developers tell you exactly which method they are using, its difficult to gauge whats going on under the hood. You are trusting the developers that they have used the right tools to solve for what you need. Luckily there are a lot of software that do the same thing and you can just run them all and if you see similar results, then you know there is at least some consistency.

But to answer your question, yes you would want something that goes as wide as possible without crashing your computer.

feels like you should have enough Jx that 3bet pre which can be used as bluff catchers here instead of this hand

also blind calling a shove on any river is kinda sus unless you have really good read/history on how this guy plays

calling small flop and turn bets is fine but once the guy 3/4 it on the river and you want call here, your saying he has too many missed draws that take this line? now you have the parameters to go into a solver or just do some basic pen and paper combo counting to see if this is true.

cant really justify the turn bet here imo

if you want to pressure 77-TT just cbet bigger on the flop and be done with it

if you 3bet all your AK pre then you will have a lot of combos that bet this turn as a semi bluff, with the next best ones being 54s, so having Ax suited here is too wide as well

The only spot where Snowie cold calls a 4bet with AQo is blind vs blind.

Snowie also likes to flat KK pre a lot more than whats happening in game.

JJ/TT are pretty much dead vs micro 4bet range. So all your doing is trying to play a range of QQ+/AKo vs 4bets. Generally you can fold AKo/QQ in early positions. AKs is the best bluff hand you can jam so playing that aggressively with AA is mandatory imo.

tbh after play poker for so many years, the only hand im happy getting it all in pre is AA. KK can be made to be a bluff catcher if ppl jam enough Ax bluffs but ppl arent doing it.

PFR and ATS are too low, but you say you have a limping in SB vs BB so that would explain it

3bet is too low like most players

Fold to Cbet seems way too low unless everyone your playing with cbets 1/4 pot as a standard.

WSD is low as well due not folding to cbet and getting to showdown with weaker than average range.

this is the nut turn to overbet if you plan to triple

You need to cold call from the BB very wide because the odds you are given will be so good, even if you know your hand is so weak and unplayable and will just check fold most of the time, you still call like a chad because that 0.01 minuscule ev of calling is better than giving up in the blinds and folding for 0 ev.

If you want to play 3bet mostly then its also fine as well, and snowie will give you hands that have mixed strategy. You can just pure 3bet them and its its going be the same EV. But there are hands that cant be 3bet and must call for marginal gains which you cannot fold.