I was planning on frontshoving almost all boards with my AAxx and 30% invested pre. But what about this board?

Villain can have a really wide range here.


888 Poker - $0.05 PL Hi (6 max) - Omaha Hi - 5 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

UTG: 157.8 BB (VPIP: 34.48, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 59)
Hero (CO): 108 BB
BTN: 130.4 BB (VPIP: 65.00, PFR: 61.67, 3Bet Preflop: 42.86, Hands: 60)
SB: 142.8 BB (VPIP: 61.15, PFR: 23.08, 3Bet Preflop: 9.09, Hands: 157)
BB: 47.2 BB (VPIP: 39.75, PFR: 8.07, 3Bet Preflop: 1.23, Hands: 161)

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 2 7 A A

fold, Hero raises to 2.8 BB, BTN raises to 9.8 BB, fold, fold, Hero raises to 30.8 BB, BTN calls 21 BB

Flop: (63 BB, 2 players) 5 T 7
Hero??

The question isn't really his range (against which we have about 42% equity), it's whether he has a flush or not, and suits are approximately equal in ranges (bar the cards we can see). If we ship it in on the flop, we're drawing pretty dead when called; it's not like a flop where he'll call with a pair + FD or something.

If you bet, he's calling all flushes, probably calling all sets, and probably folding everything else, such as two pairs, one pair and straight draws.

If you check, he's probably betting all flushes (unless he tries to be tricky). He might bet sets (the only draw vs a flush). And then it comes down to how frequently he bluffs and what hands he chooses to do that with.

This is where it'd be useful to know some postflop stats. For example, is he a calling station? Will he stab if we check? Will it just check down if he doesn't have a flush? Etc.

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of his range contains a flush or set, but I don't have PokerJuice, etc. to figure it out. I would guess it's significantly less than 50% of the time.

Another consideration: if he doesn't have a flush or set, how much do we have to bet to make him fold? Is this a small enough amount that we could bet and fold if he shoves (or give up if he calls)? E.g. is he folding to a 1/4 pot bet?

Failing all the above, given that any betting is polarised and largely reduces to a bluff-catching game, without any reads to take an exploitative line or doing the maths to work out how often he has a calling hand, you could just bluff the optimal frequency to be unexploitable and be done with it.

Don't know much about the guy after 60 hands, 4betted him once with AdAxJdx
money went in on a KdQdxx flop when he flopped top set.

But given his pre stats he can have almost any hand here.

Everything one can do in PokerJuice is possible in the free version of PPT.

I was thinking about this exact spot yesterday spots where your AA has poor side cards. Iv been thinking if its a mistake to build large pots pre with them since there are so many flops and turns you have to fold on. IDK how do you guys feel?

Well, without wanting to hijack the main point of discussion (which is quite an interesting one worthy of working through in detail), I've been pondering this same thing.

Obviously we have to consider both in position and out of position 3-betting, the range of the opener, etc. and whether we want to go multi-way or heads-up.

However, I think that it's useful to have aces in both a 3-betting and flatting range, otherwise (against thinking regs) we've become slightly more straightforward to play against. Hence we shouldn't always 3-bet aces nor should we always flat them. (Against unknown villains it obviously doesn't matter.)

Certainly, out of position, in a pot that's going to be heads-up (e.g. one opener and all folded to us in the BB), I think that there's some merit to choosing what to do based on the strength of the side cards; 3-betting for value with the premium ones and flatting with the trash, so that we don't build big pots out of position with one-way hands.

In position I think it becomes more situation dependent. If there's one opener and, say, if we flat, we expect one or two weak players with decent stacks to come along, but if we 3-bet we get heads-up, then it may be better to flat premium aces that are going to play strongly multi-way (e.g. double-suited) and raise the weaker ones, to get heads-up in position. Whether flatting premium aces and going multi-way ultimately is more profitable than 3-betting and going heads-up is just a guess on my part; I don't have any empirical data to back it up and the opposite may of course be true.

Ok checkshoved him he had a pair + straightdraw, he turned two pair I rivered a better two pair.

38% equity so was the correct move given his hand.

I don't like a check. Plenty of his range has a random ten, so we're just giving free cards too often. I like betting small and then calling vs lags and folding vs nits to a raise. Potting allows our opponent to play perfectly against us, but it can be viable if there's a 3bet/4bet history.

True but checking allowed me to find out how strong his hand was before moving in. He potted which gave me the feeling he didnt have the flush.

Wa right this time lucky enough

I just shove, although as said above bet call vs most people and bet fold vs total nits definitely has some merit. Yeah shoving allows him to play perfectly (although some people might make a bad fold with a T, if they are nitty) A sizing like 1/2 pot might even display such strength that it would fold out some of those hands, if you had a read/history. as that size makes no sense, but you are clearly never folding.

Not 4 betting is definitely a mistake

When we 4b this hand, create an SPR a little over 1, and shove every flop, we make money. I'm shoving here so he can fold hands that are flipping with us, which he shouldn't.

I would guess we're -ev with this hand heads up OOP when we raise/call.

Ok tx for comments