Yes, I know. I was talking about on average.

When I saw that you had jumped to Phil's defense, I had to smile, as it reminded me of how Trumpsters jump to B.S.H.'s statements, no matter how outrageous.

Not that I think the two are alike. Phil is the greatest of all time at No-Limit Hold 'Em tournaments.

As for that hand where I open UTG with a SC & flop the nuts; that was a joke man.

As far as responding to all the responses to what I've written, I just got done writing a long response & then deleting it, because then I'd feel obligated to respond to the responses & I have studying to do. So, I'll leave it at this:

Anyone who thinks that I think I consider myself a highly successful 1/3NL player, is reading shytt into my posts.

Not sure if this has already been alluded to but Miller recommends 3 betting A5s vs. an early position raise.��

Yes I mentioned this in my previous post. Basically A5s is included to balance the 3-betting range so it's not just premiums. It's a good bluffing hand as you often pick up a backdoor flush draw or better.

Isn't this strictly player dependent. Both the V & H tendencies having to be considered? IMO, I don't see this being +Ev, other than when there's a 7 handed table full of tough/tight grinders.

Tough = Aggressive & aware
Tight = Opening range equivalent to Janda's recommendations in AONLH.

Yes and no.

3 betting A5 suited is a bluff. So sure, against opponents you can't bluff as profitably, it makes less sense. It also makes less sense if they are not regular opponents (because then you care less about balance)

But there is a reason Miller likes this hand specifically to bluff. It is because, as a 3 bet bluff, it is more likely to work than a lot of other hands.

And that comes down to how it hits flops and how it relates to hands which would open in early position, and would call or raise 3 bets.

Namely, it blocks hands that would 4 bet (which you don't want to see while bluffing), blocks ace combos in the calling range (letting you play when an ace hits the flop and further blocks them).

And from there, not only can it pick up a lot of outs through draws, but the outs it picks up are not blocked at all by a typical EP open raise/ call 3 bet range.

So your initial bluff works as often as any 3 bet "bluff" without a premium hand will.

And when it doesn't, you have the best situation possible for getting flops and turns where you can continue to bluff. As Miller explained in the quoted example upthread, the plan pre flop and post is to win without showdown. But all the draws you can hit reduce how often the bluffs have to work to profit.

So "why A5?" is easily answered when comparing to other possible 3 bet bluffs. Generally they either don't block as many 4 betting hands, or their outs are far more likely to be blocked by the villain's 3 bet calling range.

Yes. It's Miller's recommended starting point against tight raisers. He explicitly mentions if you believe a player will never fold to a 3-bet then drop A5s.

Also think about how often you're actually dealt A5s, and how often you're dealt A5s facing a raise from a tight player. In the reraising range {KK+, A5s}, A5s accounts for only 25% of the 3-bets, so you're still 3-betting premiums 75% of the time.

And I agree with everything Nevyn says.

havent read the book, stumbled upon this topic. seems the book would be alright for 1-2NL live players.

I got a lot of great value form these posts tho.


I do think his EP range seems super super loose but mayb thats me.

opening 76s + seems like you are losing money a lot since, if you C-bet and whiff flop, youre burning cash imo unless opponent specific

He did say him treating HJ and UTG as the same position is a simplification. So you can definitely tighten up UTG and loosen up HJ. I'm twice as wide usually on the HJ compared to UTG. His CO and BTN ranges are also too nitty.

I didnt read the thread, but I did read the course. I think the book was a bit subpar (heh golfing) but I do generally agree with the suitedness argument, but it depends on your playstyle, so ill give my 2c

1) range balancing. goes without saying that A3s is gonna balance your range better than AJo. Its not super important, but it matters.

2) hitting big hands is pretty much all that matters if you play aggressively. If you are regularly firing 2-3 streets, then the rare time you get to showdown, or get significant action, you need a monster to scoop. AJo doesnt hit those.

One of the things miller suggests is to bet nearly every turn. I dont agree with that regularity, but I think the vast majority of good players are wayyyy too weak/passive ott.

Most hands that I win at showdown with a hand like AJo, I could have just as easily won by just firing 2-3 barrels. The types of players who like hands like AJo are tight passive players who rarely fire 3 barrels (for value or as a bluff), so they value hands that are more regularly worth 1-2 streets so that they can win at showdown in the small to medi7m sized pots thye usually play.

So I guess bottom line is: players with leaky passive games tend to prefer AJo to something like A3s, and I would guess AJo plays better if you arent aggressive enough overall.

Just read this thread and I found there was a lot of valuable insight. Wanted to bump it and see if anything would've changed since 2017 with regard to live game open range thinking.

I'm inclined to think the discussions in this thread have the same value as they did in 2017 as most weak live players don't study poker.

Honestly imo "The Course" by Ed Miller is the single best book for LLSNL imo and I've read a lot. I've come across very few LLSNL tables where if you applied his rules you wouldn't be a winner.

His argument on suitedness is important, and as he points out it's not just about the edge suitedness gives you, but the fact that flushes tend to win hands and they also have the capability to win big hands.