Originally Posted by GoldenBears
You have 47.5 bbs, and that matters a lot for your sizing pre. When you make it this size, he will rarely 4bet/fold like he might if you had 58bbs, and he will rarely 4bet jam like he might if you had 38bbs, so you're just going to get flatted a lot and playing AA oop on these stack sizes against a flatted 3bet really sucks.
What changes if you make it 17.7k or 18k instead of 13.7k?
1. You will get flatted less frequently by hands like 67s, 44-88, JTs, and his continuing range will be narrower and stronger.
2. Folding out these hands is a GOOD THING for you. You don't want to play AA oop with this PSR against those hands, even a decent player can play really well against you and make your life hell.
3. Since his flatting range becomes stronger, you can valuebet much more confidently knowing that he's gonna have or make top pair/overpair much more frequently and it's going to be a lot easier to play against a narrower range.
4. Given that he can flat that bet size less, and there are more chips in the pot, some opponents might choose to 4bet bluff more frequently. Many opponents will have something like QJs or 88 here, and will flat a 13.6k 3bet but jam or fold versus a 17.5k 3bet, and I'd much rather have someone jam or fold versus my aces than have them flat and try to play a guessing game.
I don't really understand some of this advice... with op's 3-bet sizing he creates just over a 3:1 stack-to-pot ratio... my understanding was that around 6:1 is borderline for profitably getting it in with an overpair vs. an average opponent; I thought 3:1 was an awesome SPR to get it in with an overpair?
Looking over the hand -- (and I've looked over it multiple times because I understand how solid Galen's advice always is and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something I could figure out for myself before posting this) -- I keep coming back to this: After villain calls the 3-bet he now is playing with just over a 3:1 SPR. If he is basically looking to make big hands (big draws or 2 pair or better) he is getting horrible implied odds with 3:1 SPR and will be absolutely spewing money by check-folding whenever he doesn't flop big. And I can't see how he can make our life hell because we never fold AA on 98% of boards with 3:1 SPR. Even if villain were to only call the 3-bet with the best possible selection of "big flop potential" hands like suited connectors and small pairs, 3:1 SPR doesn't give him anywhere near the implied odds for such a strategy to be profitable, right?
However, if villain takes the opposite tactic and calls the 3-bet intending to get it in fairly light with top-pair type hands or with 88 on a 1063 board or whatever (which, although still bad, makes a little more sense to me, since he doesn't know our exact holding and he obv has nothing near the implied odds to essentially nut-mine), then that's great for us because we have AA and get it in way ahead vs. his range. So what's the problem? Why aren't we thrilled to have AA and a 3:1 SPR and never fold and just look for the best way to get the rest of the chips in, basically?
I understand that bigger sizing can induce a shove from villain and we can get it in pre more often with AA... so I get and agree with that part. But I really don't understand what the problem is with playing AA postflop with a 3:1 SPR... this has to be wildly profitable for us, doesn't it? What am I missing?
I really am very curious to hear thoughts on this, by the way... I assume I may be missing and/or misunderstanding something(s) here, but really can't figure out what.