I'm a regular who has been playing NL25/50 Zoom on Stars for a couple of years now; I don't have any IRL friends who are into poker and I don't discuss strategy on forums, so I feel pretty lost sometimes, and that I might be making some big errors that are affecting my winrate. I'd be really interested to hear thoughts of the community about preflop strategy in micro/low stakes games.

I pretty much have a photographic memory, so when I bought the Alex Millar course on Upswing earlier this year I made it a goal to learn all of the MonkerSolver RFI, vs RFI, and vs 4bet GTO charts at 100BB off by heart. I go over these every once in a while to freshen my memory, and I'm able to apply them in all spots with about 98% accuracy during sessions. Now that I've learnt more about what GTO play means, and that for these strategies to be effective, our opp must be playing close to the corresponding MonkerSolver in all spots ranges too, I've basically shifted from trying to apply them perfectly, to dropping the mixed opens, and generally three-betting a more linear, stronger range in all spots. I'm still struggling to find the right balance though.

A couple of spots that I struggle with:

1. If our opponent isn't taking notes on our preflop tendecies, is there anything stopping us just putting all the highest equity hands into our 3-bet range? Example: offsuit 3bets BTN vs HJ, MonkerSolver 3bets ATo almost 100%, AJo 50%, and AQo/KQo 25% each. Will I win more by adjusting to 3-bet AQo/KQo more than ATo here, therefore inflating the pot in position with higher equity holdings, assuming my opponent is basically paying no interest in the strength/composition of my flatting range?

2. When 4-betting, should I be shaving some of the lower equity "bluffs" from our range? Most extreme example being 5bet jamming A5s/A4s from the blinds vs a BTN 4-bet? Is opp's range just too value/call-off heavy for these bluff 5bets to ever be profitable at these stakes?

Any other thoughts/advice on the topic in general appreciated

What's the logic that leads you to thinking that the correct adjustment from gto to IRL is playing tighter

Honestly, I began dropping the mixed opens and subsequently tightening up a little after I watched a video that suggested that due to higher rake structure at NL25 we should aim to play a little tighter, and folding the weakest hands in terms of raw equity helps achieve this.

Using the example of the SB 3-bet vs BTN range, offsuit hands: Solver has AQo/KQo/KJo all at around 75%. AJo as a pure 3-bet, and ATo/KTo around 40%. Let's say instead of folding the lowest equity hands, we 3-bet our range at exactly the same frequency, but just make the range more linear in terms of raw equity, so that we bet AQo/KQo pure, and never 3-bet ATo/KTo.

What would be the benefit/drawback of this as a strategy?
Is it more viable if we don't have a flatting range to protect?
If (NL25) opponent isn't paying attention to our range at all, would 3-betting more linear (whilst maintaining same overall frequency) not make us the most money in this and other spots, and if not then why?

Thanks

To account for rake, generally you want to tighten up your calling ranges, not your raising/re-raising ranges, because taking the pot preflop avoids rake.

3-betting more linear doesn't really have to do much with rake, since the higher the rake the more folds and raise:call ratio you're theoretically getting and the more polarised you should play.
One possible justification for 3betting more linear is your opponent not folding enough to 3bet.
When it comes to your last question. If you want to make the most money, your overall frequency doesn't come into play unless your opponents are gathering data on it and adjusting. As for how to build the range, it depends.
A more linear range will make more money against a guy who calls too much and 4bets less, and a more polarised range will make more money from a guy who folds too much and possibly 4bets too much.
Obviously if you 3bet/fold a given position you have to 3bet linear

Depending on the extent of their fold, call and 4bet deviations we would also want to 3bet wider or tighter

I think you're a little off on how you understand GTO play.

To start off with, no human plays even close to an equilibrium strategy. We *all* play exploitive. There's just no other way for a human to play.


Your opponent doesn't have to play close to same preflop as the solver based ranges for them to be effective. For them to be ineffective, villains would have to player noticeably different from the solver ranges.

And most of the time, V's are much wider than solver ranges, so you're already play far tighter than they are.


Basically, when we play, we are the real life equivalent to a node locked solver. So, you can play around with node locking your solver of choice to match up with V's you typically see. And you'll see that it spits out an exploitive strategy.



This is a very simple example, but rock, paper, scissors:

A non node locked solution is to play all three equally and randomly. Another player who is playing the same and you both have zero EV. Neither can exploit the other.

Now, take a person who always plays rock. You can still play all three equally and randomly and you both will still have zero EV.

But, go into a solver and node lock it to your opponent always playing rock and you'll get a solution that says to always play paper.



As far as cutting out some things like 4! bluffs with A5 and such........don't underestimate simple observation skills most every player has. If you're not playing anonymous that is. Anon play......you can be as unbalanced and value heavy as you want and you'll win quite a bit.

But non anon, even if V's aren't actively trying to take notes, they will instinctively realize every time player A shoves, he has at least JJ or QQ.

So, we still benefit from balanced play. And its very simple to just use an RNG and 4! with A5 10% or whatever frequency you want.

Not to mention, unless you never want to move up, this is perfect time to practice balancing skills that will be needed at higher stakes.




Personally, I just trim the bottom of solver ranges to something like a 50/50 frequency. Like KJo UTG in 6max. I'll open 25 or 50% depending on the player pool that day. Same with small pairs like 22/33. I'll open 30% of the time.





IMO, the more important thing to keep in mind is the tight ranges that lower skilled players get aggressive with. If your V's never 4! jam with bluffs, then you can't use solver calling ranges that that include hands like AQ and KQ.

Conversely, that's another big reason you *should* 4! bluff, and likely more than normal. If a V only 4! JJ+, he will usually assume that's what you'd do as well. So you start getting hands like TT and AQ, and sometimes JJ to fold to your 4! bluff that you wouldn't get with higher skilled players.

Here's a perfect example how keeping hands like A5s and 65s in your 3/4 bet range for balance pay off even as low as 50nl zoom.

Granted, this is a punt by V, but he'd been doing this to me a lot. Overbet or Overbet shoving to take pots away. I was just never in the right spot to call him until now.

I'm sure he felt fairly confident that unless I had AA (I 3!, he 4!, and I didn't shove. So less likely I have AA or KK.....though I will flat AA with some frequency. Sometimes KK, but not that much).


[Uploading Image...]

Nicely explained and very valuable, thank you.

Thanks for your replies - Rock, Paper, Scissors analogy helped a lot, and I've begun experimenting with node locking on Pio now that I understand it.

So basically he is trying to exploit you by putting pressure on your flatting range in 3! and 4! pots. Perhaps you can adjust by overfolding your weaker hands like 65s, and include more hands from your shoving range, like some JJ and QQ in this spot. This would make your life a lot easier calling the overbets and shoves on the flop. Although I would still shove a fair amount of hands so as to make him think you are not trying to fully counter-exploit him.

If he plays this style at you a lot seems with a few adjustments you could print.