5/10/20 deep stack against good player
V is early 20s white guy pro. Very aggressive and talks GTO ****.
5/10/20,
V started the hand with about 20k and I covers
HJ opens 60 I made to 280 with AKhh, V makes 1120 in 20 straddle, HJ folded and I called. I decided to call.
Flop(2300) QhJdJc. I check called 460
Turn(3200) T I check called 2500
River(8200) T I check he bets 8200.
Is this easy call? Only lose to QQ seem, would AJ KJ take this line?
I liked what someone said earlier in this thread. When you see a very rare action, most players almost always have it and some players almost never have it.
So my heart says if I face a 6 bet shove here, I should lean on my knowledge of v. It is a rare human who would put in 20k without aa at $20 blind level.
I think a small 6 bet is possible. If we 5 bet to 3300. V can go 7k.
My intuition is small 6 bets are very bluffy if v is aggresive enough. Just intuition. Because the kind of person who wa
if someone 6b jams u can just call w aa here lol. i think we get deeper we will see sb 5b kk type hands less often bc they suffer so much facing non all in 6. my suspicion also is as we get deeper the 3b size is supposed to get even larger and more polar for sb. noticed this earlier but the 3b preferred size is 17bb vs ep, 15bb vs mp, 14 vs co, and 12 vs btn as sb in the 300 bb 2.5 open sim. ive never really heard or seen that before, and honestly have spent very little time in these pre sims prior to this thread.
HJ is not EP this is just trolling at this point. How the **** does running a sim of a different hand in a different game help anyone think better about the hand they actually played? You trust the solver blindly but don't actually understand how it gets to the results it does or how changing material things about the hand influences those results. You're impossible to have a conversation with because all you ever contribute is just "the solver said this" but you don't actually understand why
IDK, feels like submersible and I had quite a fruitful back and forth considering the different factors and how they should change our approach, etc…
Hmm I would agree with that statement for normal hands that are 100 to 150bb deep. Because the shoving ranges include many hands other than aa.
In live poker 1k blinds deep though, I don't see how anyone is shoving 1k blinds without aa. So raise folding 35% of stack isn't that bad. They just have 6 combos of aa and one combo of balls. Equity against that range is still less than 32.5%
I mean as a bluff. If you wanted to 6 bet bluff small for 7k, it's not that bad of a bluff honestly. If you get shoved on, just fold.
I agree that something like kk is a terrible spot to 6 bet small and fold. Which is why I think most good aggressive players are overbluffing if they 6 bet small. It's too tempting to bluff because it looks so strong.
i think its conceivable (if the ruse gtow sims are accurate), at some stack depth our 3b sizing in these positions (or if not, then in the tighter ones) just gets huge and becomes mostly AA / bluffs / board coverage fractional %s of random stuff. at 300 i already see it flatting kk like 28.5% of the time (w the 2.5 -> 15bb sizing).
i do think most people either just use 100bb pre ranges, or at best look at the 200 ones on gtow (which are probably fine executions ev wise) but may not actually tell the entire story.
i think this is too loose for how the spot is *supposed* to get played. again i do get what you're saying re solvers but having 300bb sims pre is the best we or at least i really can do unless we want to let monker run for months so i think its worth looking at them. BB's big issue here is if sb is playing well (honestly, i promise u he isn't given comments in his thread), he is supposed to be super tight pre. like the 300bb solve has bb cold 4bing KK+, AK, a5ss, and like 5% of a few hands for b
The issue again is it’s not bb vs sb it’s straddle vs bb. Also nobody in this thread is discounting QQ/JJ from villains range it’s just a very small number of combos given the board, that also block most hands that hit the board so it’s questionable what V is trying to get called by with those hands and a PSB on the river. I still insist that I’m right that while overall ranges might be tighter, the 4bet range for straddle here is wider because of how 3 blind gameplay incentivizes more aggressive preflop play. I get “wanting” to have a computer based approach to figure out strategy here but I still think the 300bb 6max 2 blind sim is almost completely useless.
Your rationale is that it’s as close as I can fudge the numbers with a computer so it’s the best starting point but this completely flies against how solvers and computers in general work. If you input garbage into a computer, you get garbage as the output, you don’t get anything approaching precision. The solver is also going to be overly adjusting for H’s “unorthodox” 3b sizing when it’s likely just his standard size that him and probably most players in this game are using and not part of a mixed size strategy, which would signal a tighter range for large size, etc.
did we get results yet?
The issue again is it’s not bb vs sb it’s straddle vs bb. Also nobody in this thread is discounting QQ/JJ from villains range it’s just a very small number of combos given the board, that also block most hands that hit the board so it’s questionable what V is trying to get called by with those hands and a PSB on the river. I still insist that I’m right that while overall ranges might be tighter, the 4bet range for straddle here is wider because of how 3 blind gamep
is for sure my last post with this as you seem unwilling to change your mind or even interact reasonably.
you're welcome to take a look there but it's basically what i've kept telling you - the numbers aren't far off compared to non straddle games and the guys oop need to get tighter wrt 3betting as it gets deeper. i'm not really sure what's going on in this thread where you keep telling me that any computer simulation is completely useless and you have unilaterally solved preflop for 3 blinds and deeper without looking at software, but even if you're right (you don't appear to be) it doesn't really help me. you don't have any evidence for anything you keep saying is true, so it's just you shouting over and over again that i should believe you entirely because you said it. there's straddle sims out there for preflop for 50-600bb, you can look at this stuff if you want. but you mostly just seem to want to double down and tell me that i am wrong and you know everything, which by all means is your perogative but it doesn't really seem like a good use of time for either of us.
is for sure my last post with this as you seem unwilling to change your mind or even interact reasonably.
you're welcome to take a look there but it's basically what i've kept telling you - the numbers aren't far off compared to non straddle games and the guys oop need to get tighter wrt 3betting as it gets deeper. i'm not really sure what's going on in this thread where you keep telling me that any computer simulation is completely us
You’ve just spent the entire thread arguing the small blind’s 3bet range is extremely tight then link me a gto wizard article that says the small blind should have no pure calls, playing all of their range they enter the pot with as a 3bet sometimes and that in practice you can just simplify the entire range to 3bet or fold.
You’ve just spent the entire thread arguing the small blind’s 3bet range is extremely tight then link me a gto wizard article that says the small blind should have no pure calls, playing all of their range they enter the pot with as a 3bet sometimes.
scroll down to the bottom box where it looks at what different positions response to co open at different depths is.
it goes from:
8.2 Raise / 3.2 call at 100 straddle
7.2 raise / 5.9 call at 200 straddle
6 raise / 8 call at 300 straddles
trend looks to me that it has to add flats and reduce 3bets as it gets deeper. i don't really want to go back and forth. if you're open to looking at things, im fine with talking about poker. and if you're not and you want to continue to tell me i suck and don't know what im talking about, you are the greatest, computers are the root of all evil, i'd rather just pass on that experience.
scroll down to the bottom box where it looks at what different positions response to co open at different depths is.
it goes from:
8.2 Raise / 3.2 call at 100 straddle
7.2 raise / 5.9 call at 200 straddle
6 raise / 8 call at 300 straddles
trend looks to me that it has to add flats and reduce 3bets as it gets deeper. i don't really want to go back and forth. if you're open to looking at things, im fine with talking about poker. and if you're not and you want to continue to tell me i suck and don't kno
My problem isn’t with computers it’s that you don’t seem to understand how they work yet you insist any output worth considering has to come from a computer you don’t know how to give the correct input to.
The trend is the overall folding percent decreases meaning the overall range widens which again is the opposite of what you’ve been arguing, that ranges tighten as stacks get deeper. If you graphed this out this would just be calling more suited connectors, like removing all folds of T9s, calling a lot more combos of 65s, and adjusting the overall 3bet/call frequencies of some combos to balance the wider calling range, not because of the strength of those hands getting worse somehow, and it wouldn’t result in an actual tighter graph of what combos ever enter the pot as a 3bet.
The continued trend at 1000 straddles would be that you’re calling 33 most or all of the time not that you suddenly stop 3betting queens.
My problem isn’t with computers it’s that you don’t seem to understand how they work yet you insist any output worth considering has to come from a computer you don’t know how to give the correct input to.
The trend is the overall folding percent decreases meaning the overall range widens which again is the opposite of what you’ve been arguing, that ranges tighten as stacks get deeper. If you graphed this out this would just be calling more suited connectors, like
what are you even arguing here? that we 3bet looser oop as we get deeper?
am happy to report i have wasted another 100$ on this thread for the straddle ranges on gtow and sb is 3betting 4.8% at 600 straddles and bb is cold 4bing 2.3% of hands (kk+, 1/3 qq, akss, trace combos of axss, trace combos of 77-99, and suited connectors). shockingly it looks nearly identical to the 300bb 2 blind sim. are u willing to accept this or is this still irrelevant because its only 600 straddles deep instead of 1k? for whatever reason straddle is more polar than bb facing the sb cold 3b and literally only 4s KK+, AKss, and bluffs.
i do see a range it gets simplified down to 3b / fold and there its 3bing 5.8% and bb is still cold 4bing 2.5% with basically the same hands. notably, ako isn't in bb range either sim
am not really sure why you keep attacking me on a personal level. have gone out of my way to clear up misconceptions people have had in this thread (including my own!) and spent > 150$ to sim the actual hand and find pre ranges (my pettiness knows no bounds), to continually be told by someone who doesn't believe in solvers that i am an idiot. fun thread but you are going to have to continue on without me
final odd point re the sim which literally no one will care about. in nearly all of the straddle sims if sb 3bs bb cold 4b size is 3x and includes some qq / all KK, whereas straddle cold 4b sizing (if bb folds) is 4x and is a bit more polar. i have no idea why this is occuring as id expect straddle to be the one to be able to 4b slightly wider because he has one player left. but they got something like 100 different sims w diff open sizes / rake structures and that seems fairly consistent in the deep ones. ruse is aisolve as far as i know so i dont think its a solve parameter error. on the bright side we get to see the implication of straddle in this hand choosing 4x sizing (he only gets to cold 4 kk+, akss, and trace bluffs). vs his cold 4, hj is meant to pure fold kk. sb really not supposed to do much calling here something like 20 / 10 / 70 response.
ok i lied. last 2 points. ev difference between raise and calling aa in the mix sim is like .3 bb so we're getting to a point where vs good people i think there's validity to not 3betting vs tighter positions as we get this deep, but more interestingly if sb 3b and it folds to hj he never 4bs kk. its just aa and bluffs. which i guess makes sense when i see it but really interesting to think about the implications of. is quite polar even as co and btn (facing sb 3b) too. really interesting sim
Why would you ever fold kings for 5% of your stack
Haven't read the whole thread yet. Just skimmed the first page of posts. I don't play these stakes, and I'm not sure I know hero's position, but here goes...
PRE - 3B seems way too large. I'd probably just make it 3x - $180, not $280.
V's 4B size seems insane. This is where the confusion about hero's position starts to become a problem for me. Are we in position or out of position? The rest of the hand makes it look like we're out of position.
Ordinarily, if we're playing 1,000bb's deep, I could get behind a 5B with AKs, but I have no idea what size the 5B should be, given the 3B and 4B sizes were so out of whack. I guess maybe make it like $2750, to try to keep the SPR manageable.
FLOP - I mean, we block AA/KK, but this looks like a scary board, no? V could have QQ, or maybe JJ. If he's very aggro, maybe he shows up with AQ, or AJs.
I guess we can't fold to a 20% pot bet.
TURN - So, we turn the nut straight, but the board is paired, and possibly now we need to worry about TT? Like, at this point, I'm wondering if V is aggro enough to barrel like this with A5s, or AQ, or AJ. I guess we have to call.
RIVER - I have no idea what to do here. Does he takes this line with AA/KK? Even doing this with AK seems a bit wild, when we can have QQ. Seems like he's repping exactly QQ.
I dunno. It's such a weird situation. I guess call?
Now off to read the rest of the thread...
ETA - wait...did he do this with 88? I just got that far in the thread. That's insane. Like, who in the actual f**k 4B's 88, then takes this line post, on this board?
I guess I sort of agree with PugDolk that there's some, if not a lot of psychology going on here, but I kinda feel like there shouldn't be. Like, this V just seems psycho.
I don't know how to assess his post-flop bet sizing as it relates to what his range may be. But when he cold-4B's pre, and then goes bet-bet-bet, with the flop bet being really small, and the last one being pot-sized, it sure looks a lot like QQ to me, more than anything else, though I like Tomark's analysis that points to JJ, and could also see JJ taking this line.
Didn't bother reading it all but had annoying approached this by using MDF on hero's range?
Eg say hero has half AA , half kk, QQ JJ, all ako and all aqs ( just making it up as I go along)
Then on flop let's say he calls with entire range of 22 combos.
Then on turn we need to fold something. Let's assume we never raise. So we call with just under 60pc so 12 combos. So QQ JJ ako makes 13 combos let's go with that
Then river we ditch 6 to 7 combos so we fold 6 or 7 ako. Either do this based on suits , although idk r does of the two tens, or pure randomise
It does look like you can't fold all ak as you will get abused as there are too many ak combos. But you can't call all ak as you have the boats and quads and his sizing is massive and ak is the bottom of your range.
If you don't like my flop range assumption just replace with another assumption but I think you end up with a similar situation by the river where you are calling some ak and folding some
Also might get more complex if we raise somewhere along the way ( presumably we do with quad jacks....) , so then what are our bluffs if we do that? Maybe we use some aqs as a bluff on the turn like we raise all QQ and use two aq as bluffs. Then on the river we only have JJ and ak so we have to call with 4 combos of ak
Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
Oops realise I counted 9 ako but there are 12. But ok maybe we 5b with half AA half kk all aks and 3 ako and we are back to my numbers. But I think doesn't make a massive difference, you have to sometimes call ak sometimes fold
Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
I think with the flop/turn sizing we’re usually expecting a river bet so quads is a x/r all in on the river not the turn. Qq is a x/c since villain is repping only quads and bluffs at that point.
ok so RaiseAnnounced and I just dicked around on piosolver, which seems like it can solve for 1000 BB deep idk what pug dolk is talking about.
We basically started with a preset hero 3B range, and ignored HJ (yeah i know big caveat but lets say straddle saw a fold tell, whatever), and there are several other typical caveats for any sort of preflop solving.
with hero 3b range of QTs+ KTs+ ATs+ 88+ AKo AQo, it 6 bets AK 70% of the time
with hero 3 betting a range of basically AA KK QQ AK and random bluffs for a 4.8% range, it 6 bets AK 42% of the time.
So there ya go, its mixing either way.
ok so RaiseAnnounced and I just dicked around on piosolver, which seems like it can solve for 1000 BB deep idk what pug dolk is talking about.
We basically started with a preset hero 3B range, and ignored HJ (yeah i know big caveat but lets say straddle saw a fold tell, whatever), and there are several other typical caveats for any sort of preflop solving.
with hero 3b range of QTs+ KTs+ ATs+ 88+ AKo AQo, it 6 bets AK 70% of the time
with hero 3 betting a range of basically AA KK QQ AK and random b
i kinda confused by whats going on here bc of the wording but i think the initial 3b range is too wide (am currently looking at 600bb sim simplified to raise or fold from the sb and its like TT+, ATss+, KQss, and then fractional combos of AKo, the suited bways, lower pairs, a5 / a4ss, and suited connectors for around 6%)
gtow has them if u r curious and want to torch
We ran it two different ways: One with a linear 3b range of the top 8% of hands (your typical SBvHJ 3b-or-fold strat 100bbs deep), and one with a very polar 5% range (made up of the top 2.5% of hands + 2.5% worth of a wide array of blockers and board coverage hands). For the linear strat, it played 70/30 R/C with AKs, and with the polar strat it played 42/58 R/C when facing a 4b. I'm not sure we're going to find the 10x hyper polar strat in-game and the sizing hero used suggests that we didn't, so I tend to think the 3b strat is going to fall somewhere between these two scenarios.
I'll be honest, I don't even remember what everyone was arguing about and whom this proves right or wrong, but I have enjoyed the discussion nonetheless.
We ran it two different ways: One with a linear 3b range of the top 8% of hands (your typical SBvHJ 3b-or-fold strat 100bbs deep), and one with a very polar 5% range (made up of the top 2.5% of hands + 2.5% worth of a wide array of blockers and board coverage hands). For the linear strat, it played 70/30 R/C with AKs, and with the polar strat it played 42/58 R/C when facing a 4b. I'm not sure we're going to find the 10x hyper polar strat in-game and the sizing hero used suggests that we didn't,
okok
