Should I call this flop 3bet jam?

Hmm okay interesting I usually wouldn't iso-raise pockets pairs 55 and below, but perhaps that is something I can consider in the future.

Here's the section of MPT I was referencing:

Where it states that out of monotone, two-tone and rainbow boards it's monotone boards that get bet at the highest frequency, but for a smaller size. However that book is five years old now, so perhaps theory has moved along some?

That's cool, I've met very few players over the years who are able to consistently play a LAG style profitably, fair play to you.

Sure, the iso-raise preflop is a low frequency play.

Not sure what you mean by "Yes, multiway and getting squeezed is bad but so is getting 3bet and being multiway in a bigger pot."

For sure I am hoping to bluff villain on the flop, as his loose limping range is going to whiff most of the time.

I use a 6bb iso-raise size in this game because sizes like 4-5bb are not enough to push other players out of the pot.

This is kind of true.
When open raising even "HJ", 22+/65s are pure opens for 2.25x BUT we have a limp in "MP" ... and in MP we mix open/fold with 22-44 and even 87s (although 65s is opened the most, that's due to how robots behind respond to the open).
ALSO BUT: we are raising the limper to 6x ... which is far from 2.25x.

Also worth noting that GTO has us fold 65s/55- differently depending on who 3bets us when we open MP or later. Note that we mostly fold to BB (presumably because he's most likely to call), which I would assume means we "should" do the same vs. the limper ... but then humans rarely act like robots.

I mostly try to go with "Smash live cash; no ante; no rake" ranges, which for HJ look similar to yours but roughly KJo/KTo/QJo mix fold and 55- are pure opens. Also it mixes next hand down with some of the suited gappers (Eg. J8s/97s open a bit, and T8s/65s pure open).

If BB 5x 3bets then 65s and 55- fold a lot from any IP open.

Interesting, thanks.

Consistently profitable would be a stretch. I have downswings, just like everyone else. It's a higher variance style of play, but I seem to do okay.

Nice one, good for you.

Interesting. Well my memory of this was from upswing poker. The high card disadvantage/low card advantage is much more pronounced in an EP vs BB scenario, where 742 is much better for EP and AK9 is much better for BB.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2zXrn4J...

Sure but a loose player limp is basically as wide as a bb call, or maybe even wider and more capped but without much of a fear of 3b.

I take it you mean 742 is much better for the BB and AK9 is much better for EP.

Absolutely on low monotone boards such as the one being discussed in this thread the BB/limp caller is doing very well - I was just referring to monotone boards in general.

Depends on your definition of LAG but I'm pretty close to a LAG in my games and I'm winning >10bb/hr

What stakes are you playing and how big is your sample size?

Nope. I mean what i said. AK9 blocks a huge amount of EPs flushes and 742 blocks a bunch of BBs flushes, and nut advantage plays a bigger and more pronounced role due to EPs narrow range.

BB donks 25% on AK9hhh, EP cbets 80% on 742. My link goes over it.

Ah okay, interesting! Yes I remember hearing similar thoughts on high flush boards in a Bart Hanson video. I'll take a look, thanks.

Mostly 2/3 and 3/5, some 2/5 and 5/10. Depends on which casino I go to. My post pandemic sample size is like ~11bb/hr over ~2k hours, this year (basically only played during summer) is 14bb/hr over 280 hours.

Idk if I really qualify as a LAG though. I'm generally the most laggy of the big winners in those games, but probably not loose enough preflop to really qualify as what most people have in mind when they think of a live LAG player.

Well those are great results, congrats. What do you think is making the difference? Are these games notably soft/splashy? How many hands per hour are you using in your calculations? I usually go with 25 per hour. So far this year I'm beating my local $1/$3 game for over 10bb/hour but it's only a small sample size of about 200 hours (I play mostly $2/$5 where my winrate is solid but not over 10bb/hour, more like 4 or 5).

I often see 10bb/hour banded around as a realistic target for cash game players. Personally I think this is very difficult to maintain consistently in a large sample, and I would estimate that less than 5% of players can do it, even at $1/$2.

Like on an individual level? Most players just don't study, or don't study the right things. Many are really stubborn about it in really frustrating ways, not a fun topic.

These are Vegas games, generally not splashy but can be pretty soft. Idk where Vegas games are at in terms of softness of games compared to the rest of the nation, 5/10 can be pretty tough at Wynn and Aria.

I've tracked it a number of times, most of the time I'm getting somewhere around 32-35 hands an hour. I think it's really heavily game dependent, the game I play the most is extremely reg filled and everyone is making quick decisions. 25/hr could very well be the case for your game, often times the better games go slower.

Yeah I mean probably less than 5% of players are winning significantly at all, given how much money is lost over time due to rake. Actually had a discussion with a few friends about this topic a while ago, here in Vegas we're thinking the benchmark for crushers should actually be raised, that 12bb/hr might be more appropriate for the biggest winners in a game. Biggest reasons being the buyin cap being raised to 300+ bb in most $5+ bb games, and most rake structures being 5% to $5 max or $14/hr time games. The other big reason is that, while the general poker population is steadily improving over time, the best players are getting better at a much quicker rate.

Ah, Vegas games, okay that makes some sense. I was playing in Vegas for a couple of weeks this summer. I found the low stakes cash games to be pretty decent (same as everywhere really) although they have a reputation for being tighter and stronger than average. That wasn't really my experience but it was during the WSOP so perhaps the action was better than average.

You are blessed with those rake structures. I live in Canada and 10% up to $10 +$2 for promotions is considered normal in $1/$3 games. I live in BC - in Ontario and Quebec it's even worse, to a literally criminal and unbeatable degree.

32-35 hands an hour is extremely fast dealing. I would imagine that your win rate is even higher than you've calculated as I honestly find it hard to believe there are card rooms that average that number of hands/hour.

But that said, it sounds like the combination of great rake and fast dealing is helping your winrate, power to you. Good luck for the future!

Whether and why you ISO 6x is between you and god, but I think it does limit your ability to sustain like a 30% range, or whatever it'd have to be for a linear range to include 65s a sizable percentage of the time. Hands like these are included at a very small mix regardless of your strategy just because of their board coverage benefits, but you'd have to be very disciplined and studied for that to be worth incorporating.

You could make the case for some polar strategies at this size that ISO a clear value range and then a mix of hands like these, while limping some of the hands in between. I think we're all mostly just guessing until someone finally breaks down and buys me a preflop solver license. (C'mon LLSNL, you know I'd give you back your value in free advice in no time...)

Top two is a thin value raise here (when you can get all the value you need by just calling or betting each street), and you don't want to go for thin value against LAGs. They bet and raise too much, so you make betting to be the incorrect play by having very strong bluff catchers and draws in your calling range and you make raising the incorrect play by having your aggressive lines be very polarized between hands that are either thanking them for raising or that aren't forfeiting much equity.

FWIW, solvers really don't like raising large bets on these boards (which is why it loves to bet tiny amounts on them). I don't really understand why tbh, but I'll mention here because it happens to support my argument, which makes me sound smart.

As indicated in the original post, I use a large ISO raise size in this game because 4-5bb is not enough to get the rest of the field to fold preflop. I'm not doing this even 30% of the time with 65s, it's just a hand I include some of the time in my iso-raising range, for board coverage etc - and villain in this hand is a spewy LAG who I wanted to play heads-up pots in position against.

I do have a limping range if there has been at least one limp before the action gets to me, but that range doesn't include 65s.

Yes I realise top two is a risky raise on this board vs a small-pair-heavy limping range. The reason I did this was because during the hand I tunnelled my vision into the Ax and Kx portion of his range that was donking with a flush draw, and wanted to raise for protection. Of course this is an error and I should play against his whole range. Letting the LAG hang himself is indeed the way to go and in hindsight calling on the flop is certainly a much better option.