Range for calling Flop Raise-all-in
Recent session at the 1/3 tables at the Borgata (AC).
3 young aggressive players have just picked up to go to dinner, taking about 2k off the table.
Villain is of the new players to sit. He is an older gentleman who just kept talking and joking socially. Very comfortable.
We're 100BB effective.
V (300) raises to 15 (within standard opens) from UTG+1.
Folds to Hero (450) with XX in the BB, I raise to 50.
V calls.
Flop(100) Ts 6s 2d
H c-bets 50 for value.
V raises all-in.
$200 for hero to call.
1. As hero, what range are you calling with?
I really dislike the advice saying to fold here and I stand by what I said. Long story short, there are plenty of bluffs and value we beat with QQ+. KK+ is heavily discounted. And then there are silly outliers like this that skew things even more in our favor. Like, give villain a 10% spaz factor and that just helps our case.
I think there is an internal bias towards remembering the times we called and were wrong. We are sort of supposed to be wrong when we call.
Player A folds 10 out of 10 t
I'll try to de-activate chicken-****-mode moving forward.
I know that I have to call and lose sometimes, just like I have to bluff and get caught sometimes.
It's something I have to work on.
call w pairs lol. understand when you're commited based on spr and stop finding ways to level yourself into folding when that's the case. if you're unwilling to play for stacks with one pair dont 3b pre and create a situation where you're often going to have one pair and going to need to go with your hand
Thanks.
This is why people say I over-think things...
I think the player pool at 1/3 tends to spaz out pre by opening huge or jamming pre with JJ, to avoid seeing a flop, so I'm not putting that in his range. I could see him playing 22, 66, and TT this way, and also trying to trap by just flat-calling with AA and KK pre.
The flop is T-high. Maybe he jams AT, but that's not very many combos, and I don't expect him to be jamming PP's lower than top-pair.
Yes, I realize that with the SPR what it is, we're supposed to call off with top pair or better, but against the older dude segment of the 1/3 player pool, we're going to be shown AA/KK and sets more often than worse 1P hands.
So while it may be a -EV fold against most of the population, it's a +EV exploitative fold against this type of V.
but it isn't because he had 88? you're making really really weird specific population assumptions and (too) large deviations as a result.
but it isn't because he had 88? you're making really really weird specific population assumptions and (too) large deviations as a result.
I take it this was directed at me?
Not sure what question you're asking me here.
There's an entire section of the forum dedicated to poker theory and GTO. I thought this section of the forum was specifically for discussion of exploitative adjustments for playing LNLHE cash games. The entire point would seem to be making deviations from GTO.
So...yeah, I plead guilty to making exploitative deviations from GTO. I do it for reasons I think are logical, based on experience, psychology, logic, whatever. I don't think the assumptions about older players are "really really weird" or all that specific.
They're actually the opposite - pretty common and very generalized, which is why I said in my first comment, "No other reads than older gent..."
If we play GTO, we'll still sometimes make decisions which were correct in theory, but which result in a loss. Likewise, when we play exploitatively, we'll sometimes be wrong, and fold QQ to 88 here.
I'm fine with that, for the reasons clearly stated - against this type of V, at low stakes, within this population, showing this sort of aggression, we'll see AA/KK and sets more often than worse 1P hands when they jam, even in low SPR situations.
I said I'd call 100% of the time with all my sets and AA, and often with KK/QQ, but that I might sometimes even fold KK/QQ. I noticed you said we should call with ANY pair. I don't think that's right. At this SPR, I'm pretty sure we're only supposed to be stacking off with top pair or better, not just any pair.
If I decide not to stack off with Tx or JJ here, against this V type, showing this sort of aggression, on a fairly dry board, that's actually not that big a deviation, and as exploits go, it seems fairly defensible.
Do we really have Tx here? Vs old guy ep open I just flat T9-ATs, or fold if there is high squeeze potential behind.
If we do I’m probably calling those. Definitely AT, the others start getting iffy.
When we get 2:1 to call off on the flop I really don't like folding hands that bet the flop for value.
If we're going to bet/fold QQ, a hand that doesn't even block anything except for FDs that include the Qs, I wonder if we should cbet that in the first place.
Maybe population reads make that an exploitive fold but in a vacuum that can't be good when we need only 33% equity to call?
I take it this was directed at me?
Not sure what question you're asking me here.
There's an entire section of the forum dedicated to poker theory and GTO. I thought this section of the forum was specifically for discussion of exploitative adjustments for playing LNLHE cash games. The entire point would seem to be making deviations from GTO.
So...yeah, I plead guilty to making exploitative deviations from GTO. I do it for reasons I think are logical, based on experience, psychology, logic, whatever
im saying that its clearly not a good adjustment based on what he showed up with. there's no real evidence to suggest a deviation this large. if you take a look at the solve (i used 75bb to mimic the post flop spr), calling off after cbetting half pot here is worth 45bb for the bb. so youd need to basically see villain's cards to find a fold here. you cannot soul read fold or call early in the hand in all in situations when spr is low and equity is the primary driver of decisions, the cost of being wrong is astronomical.
re the any pair thing, we dont really have any pairs other than overpairs here. its bb vs utg1 when he 5xs lol.
When we get 2:1 to call off on the flop I really don't like folding hands that bet the flop for value.
If we're going to bet/fold QQ, a hand that doesn't even block anything except for FDs that include the Qs, I wonder if we should cbet that in the first place.
Maybe population reads make that an exploitive fold but in a vacuum that can't be good when we need only 33% equity to call?
If they're raising such a strong range that we should fold QQ I think you'd range bet just from that.
This is why people say I over-think things...
I think the player pool at 1/3 tends to spaz out pre by opening huge or jamming pre with JJ, to avoid seeing a flop, so I'm not putting that in his range. I could see him playing 22, 66, and TT this way, and also trying to trap by just flat-calling with AA and KK pre.
The flop is T-high. Maybe he jams AT, but that's not very many combos, and I don't expect him to be jamming PP's lower than top-pair.
Yes, I realize that with the SPR what it is, we're s
It's a +EV call vs population. You're giving V AA and KK but not JJ? Not giving him flush draws? You have to probability weight the different hands V can have and you have to heavily discount AA and KK. People stack off with JJ all the time here. Tx gets in there often as well.
There are villains who we would be making a -EV call here against. There are villains who we make a huge +EV call against here and villains we make a moderate + EV call against here. If we can't narrow down villain in the population, then we should give him a weighted average range of the population.
We ARE (likely) going to lose more than half to lose more than half the time when we call here. We are up against some better hands some high equity draws, and once in a while we are against a spaz hand. But we easily have 40-50% equity vs population, so it is a + DV call.
