Please explain how you would exploit the poster above you. I'll start, naturally.

I raise utg 6 handed with a range like this vs unknowns: 44+, A9o+, A4s+, KJo+, K8s+, QJo, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s.

You're in the HJ. Exploit me!!

I'd raise all suited aces and I'd cut K8s and k9s but same on rest. 44 is marginal

This thread isn't going to be any fun if people don't make some controversial moves.

Without looking at exactly what Bob posted so I can't Stove a perfect range (but I did see 9fs's agreement so I gather it's reasonable aka boring), I'm gonna LAG it up a bit and 3-bet him wide. 66+ ATo+ KJo+ A8s+ KTs+ QJs JTs. I'm aiming for this to be about 60% of his range, with the bottom few in the 45% equity range.

As long as your range is fairly reasonable, my exploitable adjustments are gonna be based more on your post flop tendencies rather than you opening K8s instead of K9s....

But that it way to big of a range and you would get 3 bet lighter based on that alone

Exploit above poster by engaging in liberal politic speak to put him on tilt.

Am I doing this right?

Firm and fair criticism, but not very fun imo. Disqualified.

Fun.

Too vague imo. Also, You're in the cutoff facing cali's liberal 3 bet. I'll rule this as a fold.

Funny, but the deluge of politics lately is one of the reasons I though we could have some fun here. You have the best position now being on the button vs my open, cali's 3 bet, Jon's defacto fold, and unknowns in the blinds.

Carry on. I will sit out the rest of the thread until it's my turn again or if I think clarification of the methodology is needed.

In fairness, the political foray was confined to the LC thread, didn't turn acrimonious and (selfishly) allowed a bit of verbal jousting between calli and me which I suspect he enjoys as much as I do. #end derail

As to Jon's "defacto fold" in your scenario, I am reminded of a hand played in the 'private' 20 game at Bay a couple of years ago when a bunch of us got together for fun, degen'ing and wine. Some of that hand's detail eludes me now, but Jon was otb, I was sb and Doug was bb. Pretty sure it was folded pf until action got to Jon, who, of course, opened. I tossed my trash and Doug called. (It's also remotely possible that Jon 3! an opener, but Doug likely wouldn't have just called the three, even from the bb since you'd rather eat a bug than play oop against Jon_Locke.)

As soon as Doug's calling chips hit the felt, Jon looked at him and sincerely says, "I guarantee you have the best hand."

Perhaps Doug would be good enough to post his reply since I don't remember his words, but I do remember that crest-fallen look of, "Well ****, I just know I'm gonna lose this one."

The point of this story: Assuming a "defacto fold" from Jon is less likely than him voting for Hillary if she decided to run for mayor of Scottsdale.

I'm 3-betting 66 and nobody wants to come at me bro?

Next time I'm 3-betting 22+.

Regarding Bob's ranges, I 3 bet hands stronger than your range 70% of the time, smooth call better hands 25% of the time to let you hang yourself, fold 5% of the time and 3 bet worse hands 5% of the time just to show some junk.

You should smooth call 0% of the time.

I'd exploit his range by adding more hands to my three bet range. Hands like A8s, 55 can become profitable three bets at some tables. Or at least A9s/66, which are not standard three bets for me by any means.

Perhaps, but I was assuming there are times when his range includes hands that have me dominated (AA KK QQ etc) so depending on how strong my hand is over his average raising hand, I might just call, take a look and try to extract value.

So how does calling exploit Bob? Let's take 77, a hand that is likely our best candidate for cold calling:

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

2,517,086,880 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AA-44, A[K-9]$o, A[K-4]$s, KJ$o, KQ$o, K[Q-8]$s, QJ$o, Q[J-9]$s, J9$s, JT$s, T9$s, 98$s, 87$s	49.83%	1,242,587,196	23,432,292
77	50.17%	1,251,067,392	23,432,292

So clearly, the EV of calling is greater than folding. But what happens if the BB now comes in w/ 60% of hands:

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AA-44, A[K-9]$o, A[K-4]$s, KJ$o, KQ$o, K[Q-8]$s, QJ$o, Q[J-9]$s, J9$s, JT$s, T9$s, 98$s, 87$s	38.01%	223,505	9,744
77	35.88%	213,233	4,719
60%6h	26.12%	152,215	9,666

And take the chance we get three bet, and said three bettor will three bet wide (66+, A8s+, KJs+, QJs, AJo+, KQo)

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AA-44, A[K-9]$o, A[K-4]$s, KJ$o, KQ$o, K[Q-8]$s, QJ$o, Q[J-9]$s, J9$s, JT$s, T9$s, 98$s, 87$s	31.03%	180,444	12,118
77	30.48%	180,724	4,902
AA-66, A[K-J]$o, A[K-8]$s, KQ$o, K[Q-J]$s, QJ$s	38.49%	224,732	13,029

And that represents 11% of hands after card removal. So there's a 29.5% chance you'll end up 3 bet by the CO, BTN or SB (lets assume no one is going to 4 bet and that folds will occur after the 3, a simplification but still).

11% chance CO does
9.79% chance BTN does
8.71% chance SB does

So if you build out the tree:

- 20.79% chance you get 3 bet by CO or BTN, so you have 31.03% equity in 10.5 bet pot having invested 3
- 8.71% chance you get 3 bet by SB, so you have 31.03% equity in 10 bet pot having invested 3
- 42.3% chance BB defends, so you have 38.01% equity in a 6.5 bet pot having invested 2
- 28.2% chance everyone folds, so you have 50.17% equity in 5.5 bet pot having invested 2

EV= .2079 * (.3103*10.5 - 3) + .0871 * (.3103 * 10 - 3) + .423 * (.3801 * 6.5 - 2) + .282 * (.5017*5.5 - 2) = 0.476 bets

Now, let's take another simple case. We three bet and get it HU most of the time. Given card removal, there is a 4.57% for each of the other 4 players that they have 99+/AK/AQs and will 4 bet. So there's a 17% chance we will get 4 bet and be against this:

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AA-44, A[K-9]$o, A[K-4]$s, KJ$o, KQ$o, K[Q-8]$s, QJ$o, Q[J-9]$s, J9$s, JT$s, T9$s, 98$s, 87$s	27.33%	159,874	8,824
77	24.44%	145,723	2,445
AA-99,AK,AQ$s	48.23%	285,579	8,200

There's a 4.57% chance the CO 4 bets, 4.36% chance BTN does, 4.16% chance SB does, 3.97% chance BB does (keep in mind this assumes they'll never enter the pot given there's a 4 bet in front, a simplification but not that far off from optimal).

So

- 83% chance we're HU v Bob w/ 50.17% equity in a 7.5 bet pot w/ 3 invested
- 8.93% chance we're OOP in 4 bet pot w/ 24.44% equity in a 13.5 bet pot w/ 4 invested
- 4.16% chance SB 4 bets and we have 24.44% equity in a 13 bet pot w/ 4 invested
- 3.97% chance BB 4 bets and we have 24.44% equity in a 12.5 bet pot w/ 4 invested

EV = 0.83*(7.5*.5017 - 3) + 0.0893*(13.5*.2444 - 4) + 0.0416*(13*.2444 - 4) + 0.0397*(12.5*.2444 - 4) = 0.4987 bets

So:

EV(call) ~ 0.476 bets
EV(raise) ~ 0.499 bets

And this is before adding all the bad things that calling causes (playing the pot in the worst relative position, capping your range or causing you to take a wonky preflop strat that misses values, etc). So if we literally can't justify cold calling with 77, what hand can we justify cold calling with?

One player to a hand please. 😛 Cali already has dibs on exploiting me.

Nobody wants to play the blinds? We can put the blinds on double secret probation retroactively for not acting in time imo. So they fold.

Here's the action so far:

I raise, Cali 3 bets, Jon folds, the phunkphish mocks Jon and deliberates. Blinds fold out of turn and it's on me. I'll call my whole raising range because I don't wanna give too much info to the mad scientist behind me.

Dealer declares the phunkphish's hand is now dead for lack of action and jdr and man trader are now under a gag order. Any more talk from them and we will have to ask security to remove them from the imaginary rail.

To be honest I'm surprised we got this far without a mod declaring a misdeal or a foul deck.

I think someone should come up with a BB calling range, even if we're going to pretend they folded.

Reasonable guy opens BTN-3 and maniac 3-bets BTN-2 should make for a decent range to call. Do we want a 4-bet range?

We can say that the blinds fold, but in the interest of science someone should range out a call and how that range changes if I start doing **** like 3-betting 22.

It's pretty much near impossible to determine what our EV is if we start accounting for scenarios where people intentionally play suboptimally by entering the pot too often. Obviously if we really want to come up with specific scenarios, we can conceive of a time where smashing 2 in cold with 77 against Bob is superior than 3 betting (like if calling results in a cascade of chip slammapalooza behind us and we can just try to make a set). 77 doesn't like 4 way action much anyway, so I wouldn't be shocked if that hypothetical (BB calls 2 cold against a raise, cold call, and three bet versus a raise and a 3 bet) bears that 3 betting is superior as well.

But really, if we've converged on such a narrow range of hands to where cold calling is better, then Bob is going to slaughter us postflop by betting a ton on QT3 and checking a ton on 876r

BAH you kids and your math ruining a good game. But seriously, I appreciate your analysis, I read it and I do find it interesting. But what these simulations do not take into account is how Bob (or anyone else) is going to adjust when you are constantly raising them. Are they going to tighten up, 4 bet a lot more thin? How are other players going to react to what we are doing?

If you raise someone every hand, they will notice. 60-70% of the time in a short game, they will notice eventually. If you let them get their pound of flesh from others and don't battle them for every pot, I "feel" (I know it is a dangerous word) that you will come out ahead in the long run.



I know the game I play (8/16 half kill at Canterbury), I would NEVER want to be a new player in the game. You see people 3, 4 bet some players with junk and fold strong hands to others. You can be up or down 3-4 racks before you even start to have an idea of what is going on.

Welcome to counter-exploitation .

Obviously Bob;s tighter opening range means that when he does open, the profitability of hands goes down drastically (like now three betting 55, A8s, etc is clear spew). But Bob reducing his opening range is a natural adjustment to our 3 betting him lighter. If he fails to adjust, our three bets become money printing against his error of raising too wide. However, if we fail to adjust, then his range becomes fine, and we get exploited by having to fold parts of our range more often.

Say T9s from the HJ 6 handed is a profitable open (all evidence in my OL history suggests that it is, and sorry, my DB isn't on this computer, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to conclude this). However, it's indisputably unprofitable against Bob's UTG (6 handed) open range:

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

1,589,018,112 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AA-44, A[K-9]$o, A[K-4]$s, KJ$o, KQ$o, K[Q-8]$s, QJ$o, Q[J-9]$s, J9$s, JT$s, T9$s, 98$s, 87$s	61.38%	957,634,644	35,391,260
T9$s	38.62%	595,992,208	35,391,260

You can argue meta stuff about T9s being a good 3 bet, but from a pure equity perspective, it's spewy. So when Bob raises with the above range, the EV of T9s drops to 0 (we fold) versus a positive EV. So Bob opens 19.2% of hands and you have to fold a bunch.

But lets say that because you're three betting a bunch, Bob drops his worst hands from his range. 44, 87s, 98s, A9o, K8s, A4s. Suddenly, Bob is now opening 17% of hands. Now, the hands in your range that can raise when folded to will get to do so 83% of the time, and not 80.8%. So now we've increased the EV of the bottom X% of our range (the range of hands that can't three bet but can raise when folded to, which could be 60%-70% of hands in our opening range) because we get to play them at a 2.7% higher frequency.

By folding, we miss out on chances to make money. If Bob's aggressive play causes us to fold more often, then he is exploiting our unwillingness to three bet him light. In live games, I'll often find myself opening a similar range to what Bob posted in the OP, because my opponents are failing to three bet me appropriately (allowing me to overrealize equity).


COUNTER EXPLOITS

- So I open a range and I find someone has adjusted by 3 betting me with a much, much wider range. The solution to this is simple: tighten up. Now, he will find that his three bets are not profitable (he's losing $ by playing the hand), and if he continues to three bet it, he's spewing money to you.

- So I open a range and I find someone is cold calling me with hands that they'd normally fold to a raise from this position. It's pretty easy to determine what those hands are, since he'll be cold calling so infrequently. So if we get to a point where we're HU in a hand, he'll be so easy to play against, that I can find very exploitative adjustments.

Like maybe a "standard" three bet range against a tighter open is:

77+, A9s+, AJo+, KQs

But because we are looser than normal, he adds

55-66, A8s, ATo, KJs, QJs

However, he decides to continue to three bet the first range and cold call the second. This is 33 combos (for the record, a capping range of TT+/AKs is 34 combos). So he has the same issue as capping in that our range is defined, except it's also full of marginal crap. And marginal crap isn't doing well against our range:

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

14,040,892,800 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AA-44, A[K-9]$o, A[K-4]$s, KJ$o, KQ$o, K[Q-8]$s, QJ$o, Q[J-9]$s, J9$s, JT$s, T9$s, 98$s, 87$s	53.04%	7,162,605,316	568,438,436
66-55, A8$s, AT$o, KJ$s, QJ$s	46.96%	6,309,849,048	568,438,436

So because his range is weaker than ours, we will be in position to exploit him much more easily than he'll exploit us.

Can't be anymore wild than socal games. Can anyone else confirm that socal is the most loose with action?

Word. This is why I open 44, A4s, K8s, KJo, QJo, and 87s. If and when I find myself unable to get heads up vs a blind often enough, then I either tighten up or find a softer table. In live games, this means tightening up. Online, I'll quit when my blind comes around and start a new table. However, I don't always make these adjustments and have been told that my biggest leak is playing in bad games by a particularly good player that probably is reading this. Stop lurking and join the fun bro!

I have played 8/16 and 20/40 in both MN and SoCal. MN games were definitely crazier.

Exploit this UTG 6 max range: 66+, AJo+, A9s+, KQo, KTs, QTs, JTs, T9 diamond or hearts, 98 spades, 87 spades, 76 spades, ATo and 55 if it's black or red, these black hands: A9o KJo, KTo, QJo, QTo, 44, 33, Axs

Ok I'd fold some hands here that I think would be profitable 3 bets vs someone more aggressive preflop. My exploitive folds here are A9s, KQo, KJs, 66, maybe 77 if you had a gleam in your eye.

I use psychology to exploit you.

Don't psych me out bro!

Play online.