Banana practices folding
1/3 NLHE 9 handed.
V1 - Tight older white man. Betting range always seems to be very premium but limp calls a lot of trash and bleeds down. Losing player for sure. Uses large sizings with him big hands. UTG+1. 200$.
V2 - Bad loose passive rec that talks a big game but actually sucks. The kind of guy that thinks he's a genius when he wins a pot but just got unlucky when he loses. Doesn't run huge bluffs and mostly limp calls pre but always straddles. 4-bet shoved 22 earlier for 600$ pre and got lucky the 3-bettor had AK, ran it twice and they chopped. UTG. ~300$.
---
V2 straddles 6, V1 opens 25, folds to H on the button who covers both and sees A♣ K♠ and just calls, V2 calls - 3 ways IP.
Flop 75 - A♠ 9♥ 8♣
check, V1 looks displeased and checks, I bet 35, V2 shoves 282 total, V1 folds, Hero folds.
I guess the idea is that being shallower means we should be more linear?
It certainly doesn't mean we should 3b more frequently IP, we're barely in the top quarter of villain's range, and I wouldn't go COMPLETELY linear OTB with fish in the blinds, so I think the most forcefully you can state the case here is that this hand is the stone bottom of your pure 3bing range when constructing your range one particular way.
And even then, stacking off against described player seems pretty marginal...
I guess the idea is that being shallower means we should be more linear?
It certainly doesn't mean we should 3b more frequently IP, we're barely in the top quarter of villain's range, and I wouldn't go COMPLETELY linear OTB with fish in the blinds, so I think the most forcefully you can state the case here is that this hand is the stone bottom of your pure 3bing range when constructing your range one particular way.
And even then, stacking off against described player seems pretty marginal...
You seem to be way overthinking the "we have AK on the BTN in a straddle pot against a raise, 50BB effective (35BB effective vs. the raiser)."
Unless he's an OMC, which was not the description, I just don't see the point of not 3-betting with AK when we're this short.
I think preflop is pretty close between raise/fold ... call is probably slightly worse, but not by a lot.
V1 checking this flop with JJ-KK or whatever is exactly why call pre sucks.
Would bet smaller, would kind of assume fish has two pair and lean fold but I guess there's some chance he has AQ (or even AJ) and thinks it's the nuts or is shoving JT/76/whatever. Again, seems close and I don't hate either call or fold depending on any other reads about how he might be playing draws or good Ax hands
Sorry what? You fold ak pre on the button after one raise? Or I misunderstood?
Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
You seem to be way overthinking the "we have AK on the BTN in a straddle pot against a raise, 50BB effective (35BB effective vs. the raiser)."
Unless he's an OMC, which was not the description, I just don't see the point of not 3-betting with AK when we're this short.
Sorry if you think I'm overthinking it, but to restate my question more plainly: You keep listing stack sizes as a reason to pure 3b (see bolded above). What about us being shorter makes this more of a 3b than when we're deeper stacked?
I'm no master student of MSS, so I'm all ears.
V1 - Tight older white man. Betting range always seems to be very premium but limp calls a lot of trash and bleeds down. Losing player for sure. Uses large sizings with him big hands. UTG+1. 200$.
V2 - Bad loose passive
V2 straddles 6, V1 opens 25
I said raise/fold is pretty close. V1 very often has like JJ+/AK, esp. so when he's raising into V2's straddle. There's enough of the time where V1 is a bit wider and/or tilted or whatever, where raise is probably not losing ... and the few times where something amazing happens (like V2 cold calls and V1 folds TT or AQs or whatever, so you are HU IP in a big pot with an idiot).
People keep saying things like "AK is the 3rd best hand" as though that's still true when you are facing a range that has all of the better hands and very few of the worse ones.
I've seen too many old guys limp/call JJ from MP and then only 30m or so later open UTG to $10 and somebody (usually young) decides to 3bet AKo ... luckily they almost always announce that it's a cooler when they get it in crushed.
Sorry if you think I'm overthinking it, but to restate my question more plainly: You keep listing stack sizes as a reason to pure 3b (see bolded above). What about us being shorter makes this more of a 3b than when we're deeper stacked?
To be fair, since 3! AK from the BTN, especially short-stacked, is both solver-approved and the standard play, it's really on you to explain why one should deviate from this seemingly optimal path.
However, here are at least three reasons for 3!:
1) AK wants to see all 5 cards to realize its equity...and doesn't want to try to calculate on the fly post-flop whether we should fold or continue when we whiff when the SPR is already <3.
2) Unless the raiser has an OMC raising range, 3! could get him to fold 99/TT/JJ and maybe even QQ/AK
3) AK should make up a decent chunk of our 3! range. Calling with AK here without a good reason just leaves us very imbalanced.
To be fair, since 3! AK from the BTN, especially short-stacked, is both solver-approved and the standard play, it's really on you to explain why one should deviate from this seemingly optimal path.
Solvers mix AKo for any scenario where hero’s range isn’t completely linear, villain’s range is tighter than 30% and stacks are 100bbs+, which is why I was asking for your insights on how 50bb play affects strats.
Wasn’t even trying to argue, was genuinely asking.
