PAHWM - AA facing flop x/r from ABC tag-fish

This is live poker, guys. I see V turn up with AK here all the time. Every night in my normal game. Saw it at Hard Rock this past weekend. (The dufus called a raise pre w/ AcKc, shoved a low flop, and hit an A on the river vs. KK.)

I haven't read all the posts, but as I already wrote, H played this hand fine. V is TAG-fish, which means tight, but aggressive and fishy. Folding to the flop raise is crazy; the 9 is good for us, so not folding turn; river changes nothing -- go for it.

We are not playing a GTO wizard or a pro. This is live low stakes.

To be clear, I'm not saying flop is a fold ... even though the question is kind of setup to push us in that direction.

My main gripe was saying "it was a clear whale level error to think about folding", and then using ranges that are about as far from reality as possible to back it up.

I don't think I've ever seen someone call pre. with AK and then x/r for 4x (2x starting flop pot) with it. When I've very infrequently seen it from crusty old guys at Foxwoods they raise to 2x-2.5x the bet (but I also don't think I've ever had an overpair when they did).

Also, I did a quick check:

ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.3 P...
Holdem, Generic syntax
Board - Kx9w7z
PLAYER_1 AA
PLAYER_2 AK,Kx9x,9x7x,99,77
2280960 trials (exhaustive)

All-in Equity
[table=head]|Equity %|Wins Hi %|Ties Hi %|Wins Hi Count|Ties Hi Count|
AA|43.6932%|43.6932%|0.0000%|996624|0|
AK,Kx9x,9x7x,99,77|56.3068%|56.3068%|0.0000%|1284336|0|
[/table]

...which is at least a somewhat realistic range, and suggests we should still call flop if V is never bluffing and AK is the bottom of the value range.

V is never bluffing, and AK is likely the bottom of his value range, IMO.

I will add: I said I play it the same, but I don't know that I put the last $200 in 😉 I definitely call, though. If you thought AK was the bottom and he's never bluffing, why put the last $200 in?

prob never has top of range with the river sizing

wym
the whale level error is the implication that b/c the flop with aa is worth so much (and its so high in range) that you need extremely strong evidence to deviate from that. while i understand the op is extremely detailed re the villains thoughts, motivations, feelings, desires, etc, in reality op played 3 orbits with the guy and saw him play one hand where he flopped the nuts oop, checked the flop and then bet twice. i think its fine to have an idea of population tendencies and to adjust somewhat, but most decisions in solver are within a fraction of a bb from one another so it doesn't matter much if you choose a different option. here, the difference between continue and fold is much larger than that so you really want to avoid making the wrong decision. the issue with exploitation is if you making the wrong adjustment, you can end up leaking way more ev than you would at equilbrium or that you stand to gain by adjusting initially. the whale level error just meant its a huge ev blunder to decide to fold here incorrectly

i think the thread in general has everyone assuming a level of omniscience about an unknown opponent that's absurd, and results are indicative of that. people do random things some amount of the time. the problem with deciding "he never bluffs" and he has this concrete range, is its not really realistic. you're playing vs a population that doesn't understand strategy / correct play at all for the most part, and people do random things. the idea that no one in the 1/3 population as a whole has ever showed up with a combo besides for 2p+ when they x/r the flop is likely not right. i get that the op is set up a certain way to lead to conclusions, but op has a way of posting that i think is generally poor for analyzing hands and this thread continued that theme.

you need to down weight AK in your equity calculation as he's most likely to 3b AK by a large margin, probably very infrequently 3bs 99, and likely never 3bs any of the other hands even if he "should"

you can sit here and say lol these ranges are so far from reality, but if you just blindly mimic the solver strategy you would be an extremely large winner at live low stakes, and be able to move up into any other pool. the guys who are b/f aa here, while wrong in the hand, also end up with no ability to do that. the idea isn't necessarily to just try to copy and paste the solver strategy in game, but its an infinitely better idea than ignoring it altogether and randomly applying max exploit strategies vs unknowns. i also don't really understand the point of a strategy forum if it's not to look at strategy

i not going to keep going back and forth though and this will be my last post here :(

Hopefully you're meaning just this thread...but it's a free country.

FWIW, I'll miss your posts if you leave. It's a free message board though, none of us beyond the site staff are getting paid for this, and so none of us owe anyone else anything besides ordinary human kindness in our discourse.

Spirited thread. I learned quite a bit.

I don't believe posters are "assuming a level of omniscience" about the villain's tendencies in this hand (not sure how we can even have a level of omniscience tbh --- you are either "all-seeing" or you're not). For many, our "ranging" of opponents is based on live experience, which of course involves bias, often around risk-aversion, insufficient sample size, social and cultural assumptions and so on).

Also, I don't agree that that Villain's decision to x/r AK is random. To me, random would be x-ring pure air. Whether you consider Villain's decision optimal or not, the reality is that it has a strategic logic (can be called by worse such as KQ or QQ/protects equity). Furthermore, I wouldn't say you should expect this Villain "to 3b AK by a large margin"; in fact I'd say it's more likely this type of Villain calls preflop with AK.

I think this entire comment is great, and I know it takes a _lot_ more time to type that much instead of just looking at a HH think "lol, we can't only continue with KK,K9s here. wtf you guys" and make a quick comment. But IMO it would have stopped the dumpster fire if you'd said something a bit longer, in an earlier comment.

The first part is ... probably true. I think I'd bet on the bot, but AIUI there are known problems with multiway GTO where bad decisions by V1 can remove equity from H while they are playing "perfectly" (the usual example is GTO bot being in the SB, when BTN opens too wide ... here some of SB's equity moves to either BB or BTN).

Also, again AIUI, the bot can play worse vs. a particular player in a particular hand but it will make up for it over the majority of hands.

As to the second part, I agree and while I think we're all at least somewhat aware about the fact we can't ever consider folding AA on the flop vs. anyone half decent, I do worry about training myself to be worse by repetitive exploiting.

Again, I mostly agree ... if we could copy and paste perfect strategy we should be geniuses.
But what I've heard/understood from top players is that it's _very_ difficult to do that perfectly (small input differences a human might ignore can change solver lines drastically) ... so we try to simplify some of the strategy and take general concepts that seem to be true, and then try to work out how to apply those things based on our assumptions of V's strategy/ranges.

And, that's hopefully why we're all here. Although it's certainly possible we're procrastination against staring at solver lines and wondering why it "thinks"...

FWIW, the OP wrote the following in a different thread 8 days ago, so clearly he believes he has the ability to soul read others in a short amount of time:

If it adds context - I have what some call "the gift of gab", meaning I'm a good talker. I work in sales, I'm good at breaking the ice with strangers, I make friends in elevators or in line at airport security, etc.

I also grew up in a really dysfunctional environment, where learning to read people and situations quickly and accurately aided in survival. I got interested in the practical applications of psychology (things like determining people's deep-seated motivations) at an early age, and have made an informal study of it. It's not uncommon for me to meet someone, and in a very short time, tell them a lot about themselves.

For example, I had an "internet friend" I met on a forum. We never met face-to-face, and only spoke once on the phone. After only knowing him a few months, and only having his online and private statements to me as background, I told him I bet his parents were divorced, his dad moved away when he was young and he didn't get along with his mom, he was cheating on his girlfriend, how a tricky situation with a superior at work was going to play out, and how he could get away before it blew up in his face. He was stunned - I was right about all of it.

I wouldn't recommend anyone who isn't a real "student of people" start trying to do cold-readings on opponents at the table, and using table-talk in an attempt to manipulate someone or get them talking before developing an accurate BS detector.

But, if you're good at sizing people up quickly, or you want to get better at it, start practicing the skill. When you're at the table, watch and listen. Try to answer basic questions about people at the table, like:

- Are they brave, or cowardly?

- Are they friendly, shy, or confrontational?

- Are they flashy, or reserved?

- Are they trying to portray themselves to the world in a way that may in fact be the opposite of how they feel inside, making them conflicted?

- How committed are they to the image they're trying to convey?

- When under pressure, are they more likely to act in a way that aligns with how they portray themselves outwardly, or in a way that aligns with how they see themselves inwardly?

- Do they get their feathers ruffled easily, or are they more even-keel?

- Are they happy in general, or angry at the world, or are they trying to look happy while actually angry?

- How are they likely to react when challenged? What's their flight or fight response going to be when the risks are low, versus when they're high?

Don't get me wrong. It's not like I have a memorized list of these questions, and am running through them at the table. But I am always watching my opponents and listening to them closely, forming profiles of their personality types, so that I have some idea of how their personality informs how they play.

The cowards don't bluff or go for max value. The flashy types are usually pretty nitty and face-up. The friendly ones tend to be loose. The shy ones tend to be more tight. The confrontational ones will be more patient and look for advantageous spots to cause max pain. People who portray themselves in an exaggerated way will generally try to keep up that appearance, but under pressure they'll buckle and revert to their true selves. Happy people play loose. Angry people play very loose and aggressive. People who are angry but try to look happy tend to be maniacal. People with big egos will go down in flames rather than shrink from a challenge.

If you can confidently assess someone's basic nature, you can start to predict how they'll act or respond to various inputs.

As an actual psychologist, I'd be curious why anyone who allegedly has these soul reading skills wouldn't be playing much higher stakes--or simply spending his time doing something more lucrative/productive/rewarding/exciting/etc. than playing low-limit poker?

I do something more lucrative. It's called "a job".