QJs

Assuming this is chip EV (stage of the tournament matters), I'm getting similar results and I'm not sure either. I'll try to think on it. (If it's later in the tournament, button's range should be tighter and have fewer and fewer flat calls the further in we are.)

Solvers do assume symmetrical stacks, so if UTG and BTN aren't also 20bb, that could change what we actually want to do or their own preflop ranges.

I would usually flat with a hand the plays well for one more BB. Depends on reads on UTG. Would shove over a late position raise and call. At low stakes, the shove might not have so much FE, whatever the solver says.

For me this depends on a lot of things.

I'm never jamming any of those hands unless UTG has been opening wide in EP. Then I would jam KJo/KJs but likely not QTs (or QJs). I prefer to play QTs/QJs for 1 more bb when I have 20 bb's effective stack.

It also matters as to what our actual stack size is . Like if we have 70 bb's and UTG and BTN have 20 bb's it changes everything and I am more comfortable jamming KJ. But if we are short stacked at 20 bb's and UTG has 100 bb's I likely wouldn't jam KJ because UTG might call with hands like AT or even some AXs.

And it might also matter how we have been 3-bet squeezing. Especially if we have had to turn over hands like A5s/KJ with prior 3-bets.

in exploitative reality I believe beautiful hands like this will find more money postflop,

so when I see QJs in the big, I call. It doesnt feel that profitable to shove over UTG who will oftenly call you off with hands you're in bad shape against, and exploitatively you'd be winning more dollars postflop than pre through fold equity.

I guess nuances in such spots about what suited broadways the solver shoves and doesn't shove wont mean much in reality, since in most situations your opp's ranges and deviations from solver's play will be too big.

This is a good point -- in all but the most elite tournaments, UTG's RFI range will be much tighter than the solver's. So exploitively, flatting many of the hands the solver 3 bets is probably the way to go from BB -- especially the hands that have a lot of playbility post-flop.

In real life almost always going postflop > staying preflop, since you'll be able to "play", listen to timing tells, your feel for the situation, any reads you have. even your opps name, avatar or country may tell you something. live even more. you may implement "fake" timing tells.

humans can do that and gain additional edge that solvers cant.

I like the way Mr. Rick is thinking here. Moreso than whether a solver says the play is +/- .1 BB to call or shove, you've ultimately got to ask yourself how likely it is that the shove will get through?

The value of shoving this hand comes from fold equity and how much you can pick up the times your opponents both fold.

Psychologically human opponents have a harder time calling off for all of their chips than they do calling when it's only 1/5 of their stack. Your table image and how they view you matters too.

If you look at a solver UTG opening range, it's wider than what most casual players would open. So that would also presume more fold equity than you might actually have.

All of these factors are more important than splitting hairs about why the solver shoves QTs but not QJs.

As I was saying.

If we're at 20BB all around here, the solver recommends shoving hands like KJs and QTs because they're pretty robust vs. the calling range. UTG is supposed to fold as good as AJo/ATs, and folding ATs with QTs or AJo with KJs is a huge win for us. Opening ranges tend to be Ax heavy this shallow, and folding out those is great when we have king or queen high. We're flipping with some of the pairs, and we're not in bad shape when, say, KJs is called by AQo. And the button should be folding a lot of hands and should have 3-bet or jammed a lot of the hands we would be worried about being called by, so they shouldn't be in their range.

If one of them is deep enough that they're why-the-hell-not calling A8s or something like that here, then it's not a good shove.

Yeah, so, as a reminder, GTO is supposed to be unexploitable play that doesn't leave you vulnerable, and solvers presume your opponents are playing GTO as well. Unless you're a regular on the super high roller circuit, that's unlikely to be the case. At the actual stakes you play, whether live or online, people are going to play differently and make mistakes, and yes, to win the maximum, you should deviate from solver lines when you think you've identified a leak in your opponent(s) you can exploit.

The most important uses for a solver, IMO, are for solidifying your preflop ranges and for understanding the why behind its decisions, so you can apply that logic to your own game wherever it comes up. In this case, like GreatWhiteFish said, it's not necessarily about why QTs is a shove but QJs is not, so much as it is "Why does the solver like shoving suited Broadways in spots like this?", which I covered above.

(Side note: You often won't see KQs shoved in these spots, and I think it's because the solver thinks that hand dominates enough Broadway opening hands that outkicking someone when you flop top pair is more valuable than shoving preflop. Shoving QJs and getting KJs to fold is great; shoving KQs and getting KJs to fold isn't all that useful.)

I mean, if you're in a live game and your observations tell you UTG opens too wide and BTN calls too wide, but neither of them call shoves wide, then looking at QJs and thinking "well the solver says shove QTs and flat QJs so I should flat" instead of "I should shove because they open too wide and will fold too much, and if I'm unlucky I still have solid equity" is the wrong lesson to take from studying.

Yeah, the shove seems bad in practice, even if the solver thinks it is close. Very playable hand to see the flop with at a discount. UTG probably has 99+/AQ+ a lot, is snap calling, and often you are about 30% to win.

Absolutely agree in a lot of spots KQs and AJs behave similarly and do not want to shove.