What is it about K7?

Whenever I see something like this, I check out the strategy we are responding to.

Is there something about the limping range where Villain doesn't limp 7x hands that we can fold out?

That is btn's limping rage

Generally with your "bluff" combos you want to unblock the bottom of their range that will fold. Notice that they have all offsuit 8X at some frequency. The off suit combos are a larger part of their overall combos compared to the suited combos.

At least blocker effects are a typical explanation. But then you're shoving J8s, T8s and 98s so go figure.

If you look at the EVs of all of the Kx combos you can see they are pretty close. I will note that Villain is supposed to be limping a lot of KT-K8 that you get to fold out. Very important to fold out dominated hands; not so great to fold out hands you dominate.

That being said, I don't see much limping from the button, and when I do, it is never from someone trying to play a GTO range.

Also, this assumes (I assume) that everyone has 20BB stacks. If you and BB are deeper effective, say 30 or more, you can throw this chart in the trash, as your risk reward on jamming becomes much different.

I do enjoy these puzzles as to why certain combos are better or worse for various actions.

Agreed that a button limp is rarely part of a GTO strategy in the wild.

RE: blockers: You brought up a different effect than the one I was talking about (you brought up wanting to fold out dominating hands). I was saying we want to unblock the bottom of their range because those combos will typically be folding to our raise, which is typically the result we want (a fold) when we're bluffing.

If we block the bottom of their range it makes it more likely that they have the top of their range. So I've noticed a pattern where oftentimes bluff combos will include the card one below the bottom of their off suit range. That way we're using the best bluff hands that don't block their folds. Hope that makes sense.

At least that effect is pretty well documented in certain 3-bet ranges. Not sure how applicable it is to this shove spot, hence my go figure comment. But it does help explain why we might choose to call with K8 rather than raising when we block their folds.

Same thing that's going on here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/23/no...

Ultimately these equilibria are what pop out from an optimization problem. When you see all those jams--they're the ones for which jamming is really good.

You can segment the jamming range based on how'd you'd assess the relative importance of:

• viabiity as fat value (think about what qualities/criteria are necessary to make a combo 'valuable' for a given action)
  
• viability as a bluff (can you say independent of blocking effects why some combos might be more 'valuable' as a 'bluff' for a given sizing? It's the same general idea as what makes a combo 'valuable')
  
• need for protection
  
• blockers
  
• ICM (not here but in general...)
  

^^try to think of why the jams you see might, indeed, be unexploitable jams. How can your opponent twist those things in their favor if you just call pre with some of these jams? How might you win less or lose more?

Different buckets of combos will have the arrows pointing in similar directions. They are "behaving" the same way and the equilibrium is similar or identical.

In some cases you get convergence where a combo has like everything going for it-->super high EV