Exploit nits by overfolding.
5/5
~$500 effective
SB - OMC, 60-70 years old. Plays very tight.
HH: He limped from UTG with JJ and just called a raise.
UTG limps, Hero(BU) K♠T ♠ raises to $25, SB 3bets to $80, Hero calls
Flop($175) T♦ 4♥ 2♠
SB bets $125, Hero - ?
Can I just give up here? Normally, this is never a fold against most opponents, but against nits, can I just muck it right away?
I usually call these bets and then evaluate the odds on the turn, trying to put my opponent on AK in their range to justify the call.
I think if we’re 5x’ing, then this hand plays better as an overcall OTB.
You can call pre if villain is 3!ing 5%+ here. We already know he’s not 3!ing JJ, and surely you don’t think he has ATs or KJs too much…
Yeah I think you should fold flop with no reads but why did we get there in the first place? Pretty bad example of overfolding as we didn't "overfold" when we should have.
huh? Your decision pre is sunk. You ****ed up pre[ why would you compound that with ****ing up post?
like again this sounds great but you need ~29% equity to call the flop and you have 22.5% vs {AA}. fwiw you have ~50% vs QQ+,AK. yeah maybe hes super tight but you just can't hero fold this amount of equity for this price when the pot is bloated, it isn't a toy game where when his hand beats our hand we just auto lose all of our money. if you want to fold you need to do it preflop, once you see this flop it's just too likely you're going to make a very large mistake doing this and you also open yourself up to getting insanely exploited (imagine he cbets 100% and you fold > 90% of your range to one bet).
i would never over limp otb with this hand vs a limper, esp with blinds that everyone has decided are way under 3betting. i think isoing limpers is like one of our biggest money making situations live
you need ~29% equity to call the flop and you have 22.5% vs {AA}
That' would be a compelling argument if there wasn't another $300 behind, but we're not getting to see turn and river for 29% of pot. We'd be getting to see the turn only, with an implied shove coming then, which we would likely have to call, because (coincidentally enough) we'd only need 29% equity OTT to call to see river.
Yes, the mistake started with calling the 3-bet pre, but we're not pot committed yet. With the RIO, we'd need ~41% equity to continue now. Sure, you offered a range that gets us that, but I think that range is ambitious given reads. I doubt he always 3-bets AK, and I doubt he always c-bets it when he does. With us also blocking it, I would be surprised if there's more than a couple of combos of it in his range, taking us down to ~28% equity.
the reality is folding the flop at equilibrium is a ~30bb error. if you think he's really tight pre where this becomes an issue, i'd fold pre where the cost of being "wrong" is like 1 bb. the problem is when you start hero folding equity in low spr, bloated pot situations (with absolutely minimal evidence) you set yourself up to make really large ev blunders
Would take the under on 30bb error.
This is the biggest problem people have with sims ... SB doesn't have a robot 50bb or 100bb 3bet range, and isn't cbetting the range he has perfectly.
The other problem is we need to realize our equity ... so say SB does have AKs and is firing away (where a lot of our EV is coming from, I assume), are you assuming he gives up or are you assuming we keep calling?
We can assume our tight/OMC read is random noise and we are going to mostly call it off with one pair (what I assume GTO is doing for +30bb EV on this flop), that's fine but we need to be clear on that ... and my experience of having JJ here is that it's not going to work out that well.
Could go either way with over-limping or opening KTs for a raise on the BTN. I like iso'ing the limpers, so I'd lean towards a raise, rather than an over-limp, but it also somewhat depends on our table image. If we've been LAGging it up, we could be getting trapped.
As played, I think KTs is mostly a fold to most 3B's from most V's in the SB, in low stakes games where a lot of recs aren't 3B'ing enough from the blinds. If our read is that V is tight, even more of a fold. I also wonder if his smallish raise size isn't intended to induce action, given that he'll be OOP post flop.
On flop, I might peel if V c-bet a reasonable size, like less than half pot. But for this size, with the remaining stack depth, I think it's a pretty trivial fold, as I'm expecting him to jam turn. I think he's probably really unbalanced here, with nowhere near enough bluffs or worse value.
Are you serious about limping KTs? That's a premium hand from the BU. It's in the top 10%, and if I'm not Iso this, then I'm only raising 5% of hands from the BU against just a limp.
Are you serious about limping KTs? That's a premium hand from the BU. It's in the top 10%, and if I'm not Iso this, then I'm only raising 5% of hands from the BU against just a limp.
The idea isn’t to ISO less, it’s to do so with a more polar range. There’s a few ways I can imagine doing that, and I think all of them involve overcalling KTs some percent of the time, unless you’re VPIPing like 40%+ here.
If you want to raise straight linear (ie: top x% of hands), then I’d raise smaller and not have a limping range at all, which is my approach from seats other than the button.
I grow more confident by the year that the approach of raising top x%, limping the next y% and folding the bottom 1-(x+y)% is a poor approach from any seat other than the blinds. It leaves you either under-leveraging the number of hands you can play profitably or spewing with too many isos or too loose of calls.
Villain limp called with JJ man. It is a fold pre. It's plausible that villain has QQ+ here, maybe not even AK pre. Even though you're getting a good price pre.
As played, unfortunately fold the flop too. Flop is 170, if you call 125 pot will be 420 and you have 295 back. If he has QQ+, you have 5 outs vs 80% of his range and 2 outs vs KK. If a spade peels off on the turn you have equity to call off turn for 295 with an EV of like 3. Even if you stack villain 100% of the time when you make your hand I'm pretty sure calling flop is torching. You'd have to be much deeper to entertain calling flop because for implied odds.
It is possible but not likely that villain was just mixing things up by limp calling JJ UTG, but he is capable of 3betting much wider. But as V is described, you are running into QQ+ so often.
The main way you exploit this villain is to overfold anytime they start shoveling money into the pot. You can set mine when deep enough, but the times you set mine and hit are going to be fairly rare. You just have to recognize that this V is not going to try to push his range advantage and play aggressively to push you off of equity or get you to fold the best hand. In doing so they actually leave a lot of money on the table. But you allow him to make up a lot of that money if you choose to continue against him the same way you would vs a non-nit.
i dont really understand how you guys are coming to the conclusion his 3betting range is QQ+ and never ak. theres 8 words of description and a previous hh with little context. obviously the op is set up to get people to agree with him folding the flop but imo you guys are making too large of assumptions re the hand.
you have essentially the nut hand you can have to call a flop bet (except for a set or some kind of trapped aa) from the standpoint that you have 85% equity vs 40% of his range if he has QQ+,AK. you have a bdfd so u improve on 14 turns and imo it's better than AT at this point from the standpoint that you will stack AA on a k turn but u wont necessarily stack KK on an A turn. villain does not always jam the turn, and if he does u can call off at some frequency. again the bdfd should be the deciding factor because its another 9 turns u realize ur equity on.
you guys are making really aggressive assumptions that either: a) he never 3bets ak (or any other unpaired hand EVER), b) he never cbets ak, c) he will always jam the turn with his air but we can't call anyways and idk how you can do any of that based on what's provided. now imagine a world where he doesn't have a constipated 2% range 100% of the time he 3bets. you''re trying to look out low spr flop spot like its a river bluff catching scenario and that isn't how equity / math really works. i'm fine with over folding on the flop by a good margin but if you don't see the difference between this and 88 idk what to tell you. you are basically deciding to fold your entire range except sets to one bet.
i said this in my previous post. you're way over adjusting based on little evidence and opening urself up to making really large errors ev wise. if u want to fold pre i think thats the spot to do it because the cost of being wrong is fairly small bc the pot is small. you can't get off the ride with this kind of equity on the flop because if you're wrong its a really really large error (and also makes pre catastrophically bad). you just need way more confidence beyond what's posted here. every thread on here seems to be people read the villain description and completely ignore anything else about the hand and just follow these extremely polar strategies as a result. aggressive fish? call everything. passive guy? fold range. good player? fold the hand and quit the game. and idk if that really works out in practice, particularly when we're trying to analyze hands and get better.
Would take the under on 30bb error.
This is the biggest problem people have with sims ... SB doesn't have a robot 50bb or 100bb 3bet range, and isn't cbetting the range he has perfectly.
The other problem is we need to realize our equity ... so say SB does have AKs and is firing away (where a lot of our EV is coming from, I assume), are you assuming he gives up or are you assuming we keep calling?
We can assume our tight/OMC read is random noise and we are going to mostly call it off with one pair
this is a better hand to have than JJ for multiple reasons
do u understand what equilibrium is and why i'm looking at it here?
That' would be a compelling argument if there wasn't another $300 behind, but we're not getting to see turn and river for 29% of pot. We'd be getting to see the turn only, with an implied shove coming then, which we would likely have to call, because (coincidentally enough) we'd only need 29% equity OTT to call to see river.
Yes, the mistake started with calling the 3-bet pre, but we're not pot committed yet. With the RIO, we'd need ~41% equity to continue now. Sure, you offered a range that g
can you show any of this math? i think actually doing the ev calculations of the entire post flop game tree would take forever and it's why people use solvers. i don't think assuming someone is 3bing 2.5% of hands sb vs a btn iso is ambitious lol. you guys have him 3betting as tight as a very deep 4b range and still think that's too loose. i'm sure hes tighter than he is "supposed" to be here but at some point you're just deciding you have perfect on clairvoyance on an opponent you've never played against's strategy and i think thats wrong.
i dont understand how we have rio but not io, or how improving on 14 turns doesn't help us out substantially. you're also assuming he always barrels off when we are ahead but we still can't call?
The idea isn’t to ISO less, it’s to do so with a more polar range. There’s a few ways I can imagine doing that, and I think all of them involve overcalling KTs some percent of the time, unless you’re VPIPing like 40%+ here.
If you want to raise straight linear (ie: top x% of hands), then I’d raise smaller and not have a limping range at all, which is my approach from seats other than the button.
I grow more confident by the year that the approach of raising top x%, limping the next y% and folding
why do you want to iso polar into what's usually a condensed limping range? id think linear would be better as u would just end up dominating them a decent amount of the time with the kt type hands given how most people who limp play.
Im sorry but this whole thread is irrelevant. I understand that not compounding your mistakes is a good idea, but fold pre is the lesson and arguing over the magnitude of the preflop error to justify or not justify a nonsensical line on a flop decision because we accept that pre was an error is futility.
i dont really understand how you guys are coming to the conclusion his 3betting range is QQ+ and never ak. theres 8 words of description and a previous hh with little context. obviously the op is set up to get people to agree with him folding the flop but imo you guys are making too large of assumptions re the hand.
you have essentially the nut hand you can have to call a flop bet (except for a set or some kind of trapped aa) from the standpoint that you have 85% equity vs 40% of his range if he
As i said above this argument is kind of on its face dumb. But he doesnt need to never have AK for this to be a fold. Youre playing the odds based on everyone else youve seen limp/call JJ, and if only 1 in 4 guys like this 3 bet AK anf then cbet it youre already sunk.
And to be honest, its comments like your insistance that we should include AK in V’s 3 betting range that made me think you dont play any live poker. Like, i get thst your whole schtick is to not trust your lyin’ eyes but cmon, if you havent figured out that “old man who limp/called JJ doesnt 3 bet AK very often”, idk what to tell ya. Like come the **** on dude. This is stupid
why do you want to iso polar into what's usually a condensed limping range? id think linear would be better as u would just end up dominating them a decent amount of the time with the kt type hands given how most people who limp play.
I guess I take the opposite position of why would you not want to be polar when you can? Villain having condensed range allows us to be play more polar, and aggression is most optimal the more you can polarize, as well as the biggest size you can use and with the greatest frequency, and having an A-B-C-D polar range allows you to do that.
I guess I take the opposite position of why would you not want to be polar when you can? Villain having condensed range allows us to be play more polar, and aggression is most optimal the more you can polarize, as well as the biggest size you can use and with the greatest frequency, and having an A-B-C-D polar range allows you to do that.
when i try to look at comparable sims vs limp / callers i usually default to 1 position earlier than i iso vs the bb. we don't open raise polar. i'm not saying you're right or wrong, i dont have much of an active position on it, passively i just iso linearly and overlimp with fairly poor hands in game but im open to being wrong
Im sorry but this whole thread is irrelevant. I understand that not compounding your mistakes is a good idea, but fold pre is the lesson and arguing over the magnitude of the preflop error to justify or not justify a nonsensical line on a flop decision because we accept that pre was an error is futility.
As i said above this argument is kind of on its face dumb. But he doesnt need to never have AK for this to be a fold. Youre playing the odds based on everyone else youve seen limp/call JJ, and
i am literally a live pro lol. if anything, people live do random things occasionally at a frequency that all of you seem determined not to accept. it'd be wonderful if everyone were poorly programmed robots that followed bad strategies we knew the specifics of to a t, but that usually isn't the case
the thread may be irrelevant but what i am saying about the math when you actually see the flop isn't. i think it kind of depends why you read and respond to the threads. i do it to try to improve and i guess work on my communication skills (frankly impossible as none of u seem to be open to any other viewpoints), i don't really see what blurting out a one word answer intuitively to a hand and moving on really does.
its frustrating bc every thread i try to show math or ranges or whatever and end up arguing with people who always have some form of well this is what i believe so it must be right. im really open to changing my mind but no one ever has any kind of evidence (except raise announced) beyond faith
Solver suggests folding the flop if we assume he’s not going to continue with all AK combos on that board. However, if he’s capable of betting with AK and can even have AQ in his range, then it's a snap call.
It’s kinda funny, but if we assume our opponent is that tight, then we should fold QQ/JJ OTF too. Folding KTs OTF but calling with QQ/JJ doesn’t make any sense.
All this analysis leads me back to a point already made in this thread: if we decide to call preflop, then we can’t fold later on.
Folding KTs basically means I’m folding 99% hands on the flop and only continuing with TT.
this is a better hand to have than JJ for multiple reasons
do u understand what equilibrium is and why i'm looking at it here?
I make it here with JJ, at least sometimes, and calling flop that for this size is generally very losing when I do it.
I understand KTs is theoretically better than JJ (more outs, and hitting turn K vs. AK is the nuts), even though we block some AK.
But it's still not better enough.
I understand if we are teleported into the hand on the flop we shouldn't just continue with AA/TT vs. a robot ... but I also think it's pretty close to the best idea. vs. this human.
To get a correct equilibrium call strat. we have to have a good range for V ... and I think JJ+/AK is too wide.
I'm not saying I can't be convinced call flop is better than fold, but I'm also not like let's randomize and 55% fold seems good so any data could swing me to call ... it's more like 99% fold seems good.
i said this in my previous post. you're way over adjusting based on little evidence and opening urself up to making really large errors ev wise. if u want to fold pre i think thats the spot to do it because the cost of being wrong is fairly small bc the pot is small. you can't get off the ride with this kind of equity on the flop because if you're wrong its a really really large error (and also makes pre catastrophically bad). you just need way more confidence beyond what's posted here. every thread on here seems to be people read the villain description and completely ignore anything else about the hand and just follow these extremely polar strategies as a result. aggressive fish? call everything. passive guy? fold range. good player? fold the hand and quit the game. and idk if that really works out in practice, particularly when we're trying to analyze hands and get better.
and yeah.
If this guy is a true OMC, only 3-betting QQ+ and 2-3 combos of AK, then it's a 0 EV or slightly -EV call. But if he's 3-betting AQs/KQs and continuing with those, then folding becomes a mistake.
Snap fold pre. I'd rather have 64s than KTs
Im sorry but this whole thread is irrelevant. I understand that not compounding your mistakes is a good idea, but fold pre is the lesson and arguing over the magnitude of the preflop error to justify or not justify a nonsensical line on a flop decision because we accept that pre was an error is futility.
As i said above this argument is kind of on its face dumb. But he doesnt need to never have AK for this to be a fold. Youre playing the odds based on everyone else youve seen limp/call JJ, and
you also legitimately complained to me in a thread a week ago that you find it hard to follow my thought process in threads. so here i am articulating why i think over adjusting to the point of folding the flop is wrong, from both a solver and math standpoint, to just get met with "lol this is stupid i KNOW this guy i have never played with is only 3betting KK+ why are you belaboring this point". its just ridiculous. pre is maybe a 1.5bb error w truly bad assumptions for us, folding the flop incorrectly can be 10-20x as large as that.
even the actual guy who played with him thinks he should call the flop once he gets here
Are you serious about limping KTs? That's a premium hand from the BU. It's in the top 10%, and if I'm not Iso this, then I'm only raising 5% of hands from the BU against just a limp.
I'm serious that it depends on my table image and my reads on my opponents. KTs looks great in a chart, less so as 1p facing opponents looking to shovel money in post.
I like it as a raise in a vacuum, but it's a hand that will cause us more trouble than many others that are more connected amd less likely to be dominated.
