Pre is easy three against described opponent imo. I'm folding the turn. I think river bluff is okay.

I think you can get a Q to fold here if your image is right, but I'd prefer to think there's some chance my opponent is bluffing.

this is a great spot to xb flop imo. we want some Ax in our xb range vs this type for sure ad A4 w\out a bdfd is such a great one to do it with~ betting is obv fine too.

on the river, i just call. vs the described player i think we just win too much w\ just our ace high. he's very unlikely to fold better hands imo. def not looking to move him off any pair

edit: reading the posts, trying to get him to fold a queen is insanity imo ^_^

This actually brings up an interesting question (for everyone). If you're on the button, how loose does villain have to opening before you would prefer to have him open more hands?

eg. If villain is opening 90% of hands, obviously you'd rather him keep adding hands to his range (you'd prefer to have him opening 100%). But what if he's opening 45%? Do you make more or less money if he increases that to 50%? Where's the threshold?

no matter what villain is opening, I would always prefer him to open more hands. my postflop skill advantage loves playing large pots in position and pushing the blinds out.

Yeah, this is stupid. Why try to bluff a made hand, even in no-limit.

For the record, I've seen this guy bet fold Aces on baddish rivers. Definitely don't want to make a habit of folding out made hands though.

Seems super exploitable opponent. In fact, so exploitable I wouldn't exploit it so much that I kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and do this somewhat rarely, especially if reg you'll play against tomorrow. Amarilo Slim addage, "You can sheer a sheep many times, but fleece it only once." I'm thinking like once every other session.

I love it when they show their laydowns OTR, such a bad move, giving away your game like that in tough spots, guaranteed others will try to bluff you later if you do this. I've seen it where they show a laydown, and then feel almost obligated to call the next time they face a decision in a session, because they think, "Well I can't fold every time", or they half-regret their laydown the first time. Just buck the f up and fold, and don't give a hint that you made a big laydown.

There's still a point where that's untrue. If the biggest preflop nit ever opens 10% in the CO you're not making more when he loosens up to 12%. So, nice try, but you're not getting away with that answer!

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I think this would be very tough to figure out. You'd have to take all hands in your range and compare the EV of both situations. For example, JTs is a profitable open from the BTN. It is also profitable (imo) if CO opens and we either coldcall or 3bet. But we almost definitely prefer opening it on the BTN to coldcalling or 3betting a CO open. So for that hand we should probably prefer that CO is tighter. But when his range gets to a certain threshold (e.g. opening 90% from CO) we would probably prefer him to be looser rather than tighter because the EV of 3betting/calling becomes greater than the EV of opening from the button. So for JTs you maybe have a hyperbolic graph of EV as a function of CO opening range.

For a hand like Q2s which is at the bottom of our BTN opening range, we'd almost always prefer CO to be tighter.

For AA, we'd always prefer CO to be looser (except maybe given some very weird assumptions about how our opponents play preflop and post).

I don't mind it because your range looks like K9ss+ and KTo+. Would he b/f a queen here though? Seems like a standard b/c.

always the nit

so i'd look at it like an inverted parabola. put EV on the yaxis and %open range on the x axis. when the marginal additional hand loses him money, i'm happy with him opening more hands. when it adds to his EV, i'm not happy. that maximum happens somewhere between 25%-40% depending on skill and playing style. So let's say on average it's around 32.5% open from the CO in an agro sh game. at that exact point, i'm indifferent between him opening one more or less hand pretty much b/c he ends up at the same ev (in this highly controlled example).

so you can use that as a guide. if he's opening 1/3 hands in the CO, you don't really care that much either way but would prefer he open more or fewer hands. if he's opening more like 40%, you want him opening more. if he's opening more like 20%, you want him opening fewer.

The opening range that maximizes his EV is very unlikely to be the same as the opening range that minimizes your EV

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

we'd need more info about his play then. how good is he post flop? if he's -EV from all positions then even though he'd be slightly less -EV (slightly more EV) at some points on the curve, we want him playing more hands no matter what b/c he loses money every hand he plays.

if he's +EV at some vpip (vpip=pfr i'm assuming for this discussion), then we dont want him getting to that, nor getting away from it such that the marginal extra hand also earns him money. we'd want him far from that to the right if he's +EV at some point but not marginally so.

so there's a lot of IFs we need answered here. but failing those answers, using what i'd consider a "general / normal" opening range for a winning player doesn't seem like a bad starting point.

You're missing the point. We don't care about his EV. We only care about our EV. It's very possible that CO can increase his own EV by playing more hands while simultaneously increasing our EV.

i'd rather he add x% to his range than subtract x% from his range to make him too loose instead of too tight.
not sure how to go about the math, but i'd give him his optimal opening range as neutral for us (including looser opens vs bad blinds etc) for each % too loose is like twice as good compared to each % too tight (for us).
i think it's worse for you when someone opening 10% in co widens to 12%, because he's closer to optimal.
so yeah the worst for us is when villain opens correct range

nope

My gut is that we want him to be tighter until he gets a little bit above his EV maximizing range. So if 40% is his EV maximizing range then we prefer him to tighten up until he gets to about 48% or so. The hands he adds between 40 and 50% aren't so weak that we can just absolutely punish him by 3betting super wide, so we don't get to profitably widen our range enough to punish him without opening ourselves up. If he's playing tighter than optimal i think we always want him to tighten up even more, that seems obvious, but I think there's definitely an overlay where he is decreasing both his own EV and our EV by opening wider.

and where is all this EV coming from? the other players? it's a negative sum game. his EV has to come at the expense of somebody else's. what situation would lead to his EV increasing AND ours increasing simultaneously other than some huge donator? so holding other players' play constant, he plays more correctly and our EV goes up?

There are two other players in the hand who have posted blinds. People who have posted blinds are huge donators.

It's a positive sum game from every position except the blinds.

sorry, i was viewing the game as a whole. pete/bob are obv right.

so rephrasing my question: there's only 4 players in this hand from the pov of the CO before he raises. two are huge donators, one is the CO and the other is us. assuming the blinds play a standard blind game, the only way for our EVs to both increase is if we colluded to prevent them from playing or they adjust poorly and play far too many hands.

so there's one specific set of circumstances that allows us to BOTH get more ev:
a) CO plays too few hands,
b) blinds will fold for 2.5 and 2 bets respectively but play for 1.5 and 1 bet respectively
c) BU can now 3b more hands vs. the CO's more liberal open,
d) CO stops playing too many hands such that the BU's 3bets no longer fold out the blinds (unless it causes the blinds to call with -EV hands such that they're play loses more in the blinds than folding)

Are you arguing that the blinds will never adjust to overly wide 3 bet ranges or that they lose EV regardless of how well they play?

I'm saying the reason the opening range that maximizes CO's EV isn't the same as the CO opening range that minimizes button's EV is that there is blind money posted (since UpHillBothWays insisted there has to be a yuge donator for that to be true). There's no need to make assumptions about how they play.

I guess I thought that was obvious but sure, agreed. I am thinking I can figure out the equilibrium with some assumptions.