Exploit nits by overfolding.

Jumping to conclusions when you assume the only reason OP called V an OMC are what he listed. Assuming we believe OP clear fold to the 3B as we are not deep enough to play the hit 2p or better on flop we are playing when an OMC in the small blind 3 bets. If we do not believe OPs reads we are not analyzing this situation but the situation if an unknown made this play.

i mean kt u have 14 turns u can continue even if you think the guy is the biggest nit in the world vs 2 with jj. you also have ~38% vs QQ+,AK w JJ vs ~50% with KTss. you have 21.3% vs QQ+ w KTss vs 8.5% w JJ.

Pretty much exactly what he said in his post by the way.

Read my post again. I said we likely would have to call a turn shove, because we'll probably be getting the odds we need. The math is really simple, actually, if we assume he's always shoving turn. And the 28% equity we have against my estimate of his range (which I know you think is too tight, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one) includes the fact that some cards will improve our equity turn to river.

So effectively, if we call flop, we're calling a turn shove almost always. That means if we call flop/turn, we are paying ~425 into a pot that will be ~$1025. Our call represents 41.46% of that pot, so that's how much equity we need against his range. Giving him a range of QQ+ and 2 combos of AK, we have 28.336% equity.

So we call. 28.336% of the time, we win $600 (+$170.02)
71.664% of the time we lose the $425 (-$304.57)
That means calling has a negative EV of $134.55.

Admittedly, he's not always shoving turn, and occasionally the turn card will be so bad for us that we won't always call it when he does, so calling now is probably less of a mistake than this math shows, but not by a lot. We'd have to be much closer to the equity needed to just call a shove now before I'd count on those factors to make up our difference.

i don't think you should look at the math like this but i understand what you did at least. this looks like an ev calc if we are facing a flop open shove from him which you can handwave off as the same thing as facing a flop and turn bet but they aren't. even vs your impossibly tight range (you are the first person to suggest he is not 3betting AKss pure or just checking and giving up) on 8 turns he presumably doesn't jam qq, 4 turns he presumably doesn't jam KK, it overlooks he gives up sometimes and the hand gets checked down and we win! and / or we protection / valuebet vs ak, that we can reevaluate our ev ott in general facing a bet (the big one being folding a non spade ace) and also i guess occasionally bluff with our hand if we really want (particularly on an ace facing a check). you are also allowed to fold some percentage of your range on every street so you could fold the turn if you *know* his range is that strong

to me this is a really poor (inaccurate) way to calculate the ev of your hand over multiple streets (is more or less why solvers are always used when doing this). i get you're just starting from a nightmare level of assumptions where he has an overpair 90% of the time and treating it as the base / only case, but i think that that's just a bad assumption to make - even the person who played the hand doesn't think that's the case. it's great if you have a node lock level of assessment of your opponents' range but again, what if you're wrong in assessing his range? you're potentially giving oop a + ~33bb cbet w atc by folding something in the vicinty of 95% of your range to a single bet and just hemoraghing ev (it probably also turns pre into like a -9bb call if you're never calling a flop bet unless you flop 40+% equity vs QQ+). this isn't really some crazy exploit either, all he needs to do is cbet the flop.

you can tell yourself that doesn't matter i am better than those kids and their damned computers, but i dont really see nearly enough information presented in the thread to warrant changing your strategy this much (i doubt even your well studied opponents know their strategy this accurately in pretty much any spot - is easier for the uber nits i must admit, and i honestly think you should be playing nosebleeds if you can divine with this level of confidence and accuracy how people you have never seen approach the game based on a 8 word description and 1/4 of a contextless hh).

again it seems like we're going to go around in circles and not agree but its worth at least considering what im saying in the thread re way over adjusting your strategy prematurely. but i do appreciate you doing math and posting it.

edit: fwiw. i ran this on gtoaisolve and vs AKss,KK+ the ev of calling the flop w KTss is -2.89 facing the flop bet with the same bet sizes / pot size. tit will fold the hand though lol. i think it's doing this because ip will end up way too strong for oop to keep betting on so maybe worthless sim
vs {1/2 akss, QQ+) we are losing 10$ by calling the flop (goes down to -4.5 if i dont let ip ever raise the flop)
i don't claim to be able to solve the ev of multiple street games by hand but i dont think you can do what you did to calculate the ev here

Yes, I agree, the call of the 3-bet pre is horrible on its own, and it puts us in an even worse situation when we flop TPGK and are looking at potentially making a large mistake either way.

The way I did the math was something that I could estimate at the table, and I stand by its applicability given reads. I don't have a solver, but if you want to fiddle with the node locking and compare it with my given range, feel free.

FWIW, I did give him half the combos of AK (all 3 suited ones and a couple of off-suit) pre, but a player that is old, "very tight," and limp/calls from EP with JJ is rarely both 3-betting and c-betting large on a dry board with AK, so I just gave him 1/3 of the combos he started with. You could convince me to up that to half, and give him 3 combos now, and it being live there could even be one combo of pure spazz, but that's about as far as I'm going with the reads we have so far.

ran out of time to edit the post.

so the ev of calling ktss if i nodelock it to call comes from oop being unable to continue betting bc ip too strong. that isn't the case in your hypotheticla and ev plummets otf when i nodelock even one turn to pure oop jam

yeah idk i really do appreciate the back and forth, although i disagree with the level of adjustment based on what we've been given
the multi street math is something i find unintuitive mathematically in general (as on the surface you would expect the ev even in your assessment of the hand to be close to b/e bc flop and turn are close - i understand the total ev is not in that case but it seems like it should be)

personally i am thrilled to have an opportunity to wake up and argue with people on the internet about poker (i mean this genuinely, i very much enjoy talking about poker)

i do think where the disconnect comes from is how confident i would need to be once i see the flop to make this large of an adjustment. i get you're not a solver guy but if i look at a 50bb sim (has a comparable spr of the hand) of like co open vs sb 3b, i see ip is making 25bb by calling the flop. ok sure this guy is almost definitely tighter than the sim suggests, but how much evidence and confidence do you need to make this large of an adjustment? i think pretty much everyone is in agreement that if you can't happily call this flop you should fold pre, but once i'm here even if i assume sb is bad and overly value weighted, i just think it's too probable my assumptions are going to be even slightly off and i end up whaling in turn. even your assumptions are kind of arbitrary - why is he 3betting QQ pure but rarely 3betting AK? the answer of course is it helps your case lol. maybe this isn't fair, your case is built on this assumption though. im not trying to be flippant i just think you really cant fold this chunk of equity in bloated pots without extreme reads but i do see the other side too (he fits all of the stereotypes of the nittiest person on the planet and the jj hand and its implications)

im really not arguing that the guy is lagging it up, just that he looks down at AK vs a btn raise and decides to reraise the majority of the time lol

i get this. it feels intuitively so off though where you can calculate both ev's and have them be fairly close to reasonable and somehow its actually largely losing.

Preflop is a big mistake against the vast majority of opponents you'll find in this game. Regardless of what their 3bet range is, it's just going to have too big a concentration of hands that are beating/dominating us, and KT is a big reverse implied odds hand in that situation, even suited. This is due to opponents not incorporating enough low-EV bluffs into their 3bet ranges, if they have any, so their ranges are just merge-ish top X percent of hands.

Compare to a BTN open 2.5 BB, and BB 3bet to 12 BB in a solve. You'll find lots of low EV bluffs in BB's range, like A5o, weak suited Ace/King/Queen - X hands, other weak suited hands

Therein lies the rub. I think it depends a lot on the game you're playing, in terms of absolute stakes, but also stakes relative to the ones the room offers, and game dynamic. I am mostly a 1/3 player, which is the lowest stakes offered in most rooms and tend to play loose/passive in most markets. My default assumption, therefore is that most Vs are loose and passive, and if they fit any stereotypes, they are unbalanced in the way that stereotype usually is. OTOH, if you're a midstakes player in LA or Vegas, for example, I would tend to assume that my Vs are pretty competent until proven otherwise, and would be hesitant to adjust much until I had a lot of evidence.

But the most predictable players I play against are really tight old guys who think JJ is a drawing hand. That goes double for AK for these guys. They know it is too strong to fold, but they just rarely get aggro with it, especially over multiple streets if they don't hit.

That's how Pot Commitment gets you. 😉

villain is in sb which isn't really supposed to have those though and its a 3.25x 3b instead of 4.8x

Just to expound on this...

KTs is a strong starting hand in absolute terms, and certainly strong enough to open from the button if action folds to us, or if there's 1 or 2 limpers, our image is solid, and it's unlikely we'll face a lot of resistance pre-flop.

That said, it's not doing great on a lot of flops, against a lot of opponents' continuing ranges when we open for a raise on the BTN and they'll be OOP post flop.

It'll make TP2K or TP4K, but never TPTK. When it flops 2P, opponents will often have high-equity draws. If we flop trip T's, we need to worry about AT or other Tx that may have flopped a boat. If we flop trip K's, we need to worry about better Kx, and worse that makes a boat.

There are very few boards where KT is going to be really invulnerable, and it'll be hard for us to get max value on those boards. Like, what hands are paying us off on KKT or KTT?

It's not a bad hand, but it is a "trouble" hand, in that we're at least somewhat likely to run into better Kx or Tx or a draw to the nuts when we raise pre and get called from opponents who'll be OOP post-flop.

This is super helpful, and maybe it's not 100% turn shove but I would expect most players to bet way more than robots would and esp. the type of player described to value bet way too much.

yeah i appreciate you putting V on a range, im just disagreeing with the range of QQ+ AK. Again, its not "I KNOW". I dont know, you dont know, i get that. Its "I expect V such as this to have anything other than JJ+ x% of the time", and we are disagreeing on that frequency. (I dont think he has JJ or QQ very often either, but obviously we lose to those as well so its sorta irrelevant)

It is my opinion that the population of "low stakes geezers who limp/call JJ" 3 bet hands beyond KK+ at some frequency (its not that the individual geezers mix necessarily, but sure some geezer might 3 bet AK and some other geezer might not), but it is my very strong opinion that it aint frequent AT ALL. And it is further my opinion that this population will not then place a substantial flop bet with AK on the flop with as high of frequency as they would with JJ+.

Also I just ran this thru piosolver, i gave V the range of QQ+ AKs, and V bets 91% of the time with that range (checks KK and AsKs at a small frequency) and then hero folds 100% of the time.

If you give it all combos of AKo then it bets 80%, and KsTs is indifferent to the 3 options, (which would make folding a loss of 0 BB)

can you post the sim? the aisolve i have of btn 50bb call 3b range vs AKo+,QQ+ is making ~11bb calling the flop vs range bet of 70% (which makes sense, you have 50% equity vs that range)

i will say at some point we r beating dead horse into the ground but i also think u made a mistake in your solve

I gave hero a range of just KsTs. GTO has perfect information about their opponent’s range, so if we are gonna act like AK, QQ+ is his range and we arent getting value owned by KK+ only, then we give V the same benefit of perfect information. Ill also tell you that if you call and turn a T, V such as this will snap fold their aces a decent amont facing aggression.

The 'theoretical best solution' aside, why don't we try a simple solution:

Just call down, and if you loose your full stack, it's not overly pricy to buy a lesson to not call pre next time.

If I made a mistake in the earlier street, and now get lost in the later streets and want to fold, I just write off the sunk cost and restart without making the same mistake. You don't need to be too frustrated.

Maybe we can simplify to "don't call 3B's pre from OMC's with suited 2-gappers."

Is OMC also defined by their post flop play (stickiness, aggression, etc.) or it's just about pre-flop range?

ah. bad faith sim