V had not played a hand since he sat. Its a 100bb buyin game, but he transferred from another table so was allowed to keep his full stack.

I'm not sure where you're getting that this hand is a disaster, I'm not the one advocating a shove pre.

I don't think I have a 4bet/5bet (depending on if you're considering the straddle the "2bet") shove range in position against a limp/reraise, at least not at this stack depth.

I'd be more open to the idea out of position, but since we have position and there's a significantly non-zero chance Villain will bet flop with a worse hand that would've folded pre to a shove, I still am not seeing the logic for having that range. Theoretically yes we could print money by shoving AK if V folds JJ-QQ. Practically since this spot happens so infrequently live, if ever, we will never know if V would fold JJ-QQ in this spot so shoving AK seems suicidal.

I never said we are "hoping" to pick up the pot, although that would not be a bad result.

We get called by worse a significant percentage of the time too.

You cannot have it both ways. Either shoving AK is good because villain folds QQ/JJ or you should shove KK because villain will call with them. In reality, neither scenario is going to be 100% true.

Shoving KK here is just so basic. You are ahead of their range, they have put significant money in the pot already, but your hand isn't so invulnerable that you want to trap with it (unless you think villain has a lot of random undercards or underpairs that will c-bet the flop).

So the only hand we can "trap" with is AA? I don't think we're "trapping" anyway. We're keeping Villain's range wide. The reality is neither you nor I know what V would do with JJ/QQ/AK facing a 4bet shove for 166 bbs pre. Only V knows that and he ain't here to tell us.

As for the red part, hasn't that been my stance throughout? I think V is much more likely to pile money into the pot on the flop with JJ/QQ/AK (when behind) than he is to pile in money with those hands pre. I think that difference is more than enough to offset any edge we might get by 4-5bet shoving somewhat wide (which we would need to do to have any range balancing) $500 pre at a $1/3 table and hoping that we just don't run into AA the vast majority of the time.

Well?

What do people think about min raising pf to $230? That makes the pot $440 and villain would only have to put in $100 more to call.

I can't see myself folding AK for $100 in that scenario amd sets up an all in ($270) cbet on the flop.

Flop ($350) 2 3 4

Villain bets $150. Hero flats.

Turn ($650) A

V checks. Hero checks back.

River ($650) 7

V tanks and checks. Just over $200 remaining in effective stacks. Hero checks back? Or goes for thin value? If so, sizing?

I'm cool with how we've played the hand (apart from perhaps doing something different on our very first preflop play), and I think at this point I shove for the < 1/3 PSB. We might get called by worse for this price and we might fold out the chopping KK. If he's managed a river check with Ax after we check back the turn and look like we're done with the hand, nice play, he's getting my chips.

Course, I say that here. At the table I honestly probably freeze up and check it back, reasoning that no worse hand is going to call anyways. I've certainly done so recently for *far* less, and I think it's a leak of mine.

GcluelessNLnoobG

So it's...

0 = 200x + 650(x-1)

If we bet otr, when called, we need to be good ~24% of the time to break even on just this bet.

I guess if we can get him to fold a weak A here, it helps. Pretty sure random v cannot fold a weak A.

I think I just check it back and make him show.

I agree with this. I also don't know if AK even folds as OP said. Even against overpairs to the board and no bluffs AK is basically getting the odds to call.

I don't think people typically have a balanced checking range where they check hands like AA or AK here so I think we can bet for value.

Value bet it. Ace scared him just as it did you. We are looking at a smaller pocket pair here. I put a medium sized bet so he doesn't sigh fold TT-QQ. V is betting a strong ace here all day long

So, let me just see if i got this correct. In an earlier post ITT you are arguing heavily that villains range here is 70 percent AA. You are arguing that villains limp/reraise range is so strong, that it is litterally packed with AA.

And now, suddenly you are talking about weak Ax hands in villains range on the river. It just doesent add up in any way.

Your posts doesent fit together, and the different things youre saying is contradictionary.

My posting ITT is entirely consistent. Nothing I have said is contradictory.

Preflop, 30% of the time (or less), V has something other then AA.

30% is not equal to 0%.

Also, I have not ruled out AA as played. V might now be getting trappy, or perhaps he's afraid of a naked 5? Who knows: Hero has 3 hands of history. Sure, at this point it seems highly unlikely that V still has any AA left. But ruling out hands to 0% is lol at LLSNL when dealing with complete unknowns.

Nope, it does not unfortunately. Cause when you are argueing that his limp/reraise range is packed with AA combos (70 percent), the premise is that you are argueing villain has an extremely nutted range overall here. A villain who have such a powerful range as you are assigning him have _zero_ "weak A" hands in it for the other 30 percent of combos, that is just common sense, common logic and basic ranging skills. He have hands like QQ and KK for the remaining 30 percent, not freaking raggy ace hands. IF he have some "weak A hands", he simply doesent have 70 percent AA at the same time in that range. A nutted limp/reraise range as you are argueing for doesent have any weak Ax. Zero,none.

Either you are arguing that he have a wide enough limp/reraise range that its consists of some weak Ax combos as well (wich in that case he also have loads of 1010,JJ and QQ so pre is a slam dunk easy jam for value), or you dont. You have argued for the latter option in this thread preflop, then youre suddenly (appearantly) changing your mind when youre commenting the river decision talking about that villain probably dont fold a weak A.


So yeah, its pretty obvious that youre posts is all over the place and lacks consistent logic like explained above.

You should probably put me on ignore then, so I don't pollute your brain.

I suggest you dont go off track with focusing on me as a person- that is off topic spam.Comment on my post and arguments instead regarding to the topic. That is relevant for the thread, not you projecting your own need for an ignore button regards to me.But yeah,i totally understand that would be handy, when youre running empty for arguments and i am illustrating the conflicting logic in your posts ITT.

So, it would be fruitful for the hand discussion if you could make up your mind. Are you arguing for a nutted prefloprange consisting of 70 percent AA for villain, OR are you arguing for a wider prefloprange due to your comment that villain wont fold weak A hands to a riverbet? You cant have both, it makes absolutely no sense.

Villain's range at the first major decision point (after V raised to $130) was 70% AA. We can narrow that range considerably as the hand goes along based on the actions of the villain thus far and the run-out. By the time we get to the river, his range is going to contain much more of that 30%. For one, an Ace hit the board, which reduces the available combos of AA. And we have 3 streets of information about the villain's holdings. Given that he checked the turn and river, the likelihood that he has AA is now very low, so we can adjust our range accordingly, and look at the "other 30%", some of which is hands that we didn't originally consider, such as weak Ax and mid PPs, but is mostly KK, QQ, JJ.

You are insisting that 30% = 0%.

You are insisting that unknowns at LLSNL don't spazz out and show up with nonsense occasionally.

Here it is again... its as clear as I can make it. If you still disagree... then cool... disagree.

1) Random V's who l/r from up front have AA the vast majority of the time, but not always.

2) Those times they don't have AA, they probably have KK, though, they can still have other things.

3) Those times they don't have AA or KK, they are equally likely to have any number of random "strong" hands like A-big or a PP.

4) It is extremely unlikely, but yet possible, for them to have stuff like QT or 87s.

5) We require significant direct history with villain to deviate from these a priori assumptions.

These have been my thoughts, consistently throughout this thread. They are both logical, and consistent with my experience playing live poker.

No. I am insisting that IF you are assigning villain a nutted limp/reraiserange of 70 percent AA, then the remaining 30 percent isnt combos with any "weak A" hands in it. Those remaining 30 percent in that kind of a range is QQ,KK and AK, not ace rag.

From your perspective it just seems weird to even comment of what villain would to with bad A hands on the river decision for hero, cause they simply arent any in his range. The question _if_ your line of arguments regarding pre is consistent, is rather what villain does with his QQ and AK combos on the river.

against an unknown, the 30% accounts for random spazz hands. We discount them, but we don't completely rule them out.

The numbers are way off, that isnt how proper rangeconstructing really works. If we are so sure on his nuttedness that we want to give him a whopping 70 percent AA combos, then 30 percent random spazz combos is just way overboard and just doesent make any sense. Lets say he have 20 percent of QQ and KK combos 5 percent AK, and maybe 5 percent of random spazz. Then we are getting somewhere in terms of a realistic overall range.

In order for a villain to have that amount of spazz hands (30 percent) you are talking about, the total overall range we assign to him just has to be alot wider. Alot.

No. The 30% is mostly KK, AK, QQ, JJ. Theres a few random
Combos of junk that were getting frisky that are included in that 30% non-AA part of the range. I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse.

Dude, its you who wrote that the 30 percent accounts for random spazz, not me.


So i mean, is the 30 percent random spazz- or is it AK,KK,QQ and JJ like you now wrote in your last post?