GTO for sure it's never correct to fold second set to a raise in this spot. If we're playing exploitative, and you know villain only raise w top set, then you can fold.

I'd like to see some evidence for this. And surely it's 'if villain only raises top set, wrap + fd, 2p + oesd + fd.

Gto can probably fold some middle sets to a xr - always comes down to the sidecards.

Gto also finds many lighter xrs on flop that villain will in practice not do.

I guess fold on turn is not that bad at all..and please don't fold to a raise on flop.

Calling the flop to fold to this turn is disgusting and burning money.

I don’t think solvers exist for 3handed spots with such varying stack sizes but if they did I highly doubt the sims would say that. You have a LOT of draws that have too much equity to fold to a cr here and your saying the only made hands in your continue range are top set from a gto perspective and maybe some middle sets???? That’s like 8 combos in holdem so probably less then 5% of your range. If that’s the case the solver probably has overpairs+ cr for value which I know is not gto.

On this flop, all hands are draws, right? And this deep, we need to try to draw to the nuts, right? So I'd much prefer a hand like AQJT or QJT9 to KKTT, being that we have more than 1 out to the nuts. A solver will (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) account at least somewhat for the concept of visibility on the turn - with middle set we have little, but with QJT9 or AQJT, we know when we hit, and when we're toast. The fact that we're folding lots of combos of TT - which don't actually constitute that much of our starting range (i.e. we're folding loads of sh**y TTxx, where we're playing a bunch of playable QQxx and QTxx) doesn't matter that much.

Facing a c/r here, I'm not folding TT with basically any flush or straight draw, but not only drawless but blocking some of the draws we want to be up against, there's lots of 'weaker' hands that can hit the turn that are in our calling range.

You eluded to the reason that TT would be a solver continue for sure but came to the wrong conclusion. You have no coverage 2-7 T Q turns if you don’t continue with enough of these type of hands. Exploitably the way you play I could just c/r 100% of hands OTF and pot 2-7 T Q turns and c/f all other ones. You are over covering part of turns and under covering a lot of them with your range construction. The problem with the hands you mentioned I imagine cr range for Villian would include qtj9 and ttxx so those hands do significantly worse against that portion of villains range in a solver and their chop equity is fairly minor vs draws. I also don’t like what you are implying that you’d fold ajqt on a 2-7 turn after continuing flop

But we are talking about solvers and equilibriums. In reality people don’t construct ranges the way solvers do and don’t arrive at equilibriums so exploitably people are cring strong made hands and strong draws and TT no redraws does poorly against that range and they probably won’t adjust and cr more and attack boards you have bad coverage on so like I said earlier exploitably it’s better to probably just fold vs most live plo opponents

Huh

This is a conplicated spot with the shorter stack, i agree.

I was trying to explain solver should be capable of bet/folding many hands in this spot whether this is HU or 3way. My informed opinion is that it can fold at least a small portion of ttxx combos. Just like it can probably fold bottom set at an even higher frequency.

I was not saying solver will not continue with other hands besides top set and premium draws or some kind of 5% range. I have seen plenty of spots where solver bet/folds more than 30% of its betting range.

Of course, this gets abstract very quickly because solver will often choose different sizing or even checkback the flop with various ttxx combos instead of betting large like OP.

I'm still newer to monker world, but this is my conclusion based on my study so far.

Why do you keep referencing solvers? Can you provide one example of a solver providing a solution for a 3 way situation like this? My understanding of gto is limited but I remember distinctly the limitations of solvers where in multi-way situations a perfect solver strategy could be losing vs 2 other players non perfect strategies. There was even one example that showed how collusion could cause a situation where you know both of the other peoples strategies but there was no possible strategy that was winning for you.

I think you are also misconstruing the concepts solvers teach. If you don’t understand why a hand could be played different ways a percentage of the time in a solver you probably shouldn’t use that knowledge in your decision making. (Solvers would check back tt sometimes to strengthen checking range on certain board coverage not because it’s a bet/fold) (Solvers also have clearer break points when ranges get narrow and future trees are limited so I don’t think it’s likely like 80% of tt calls and 20% folds and 88 50% calls and 50% folds type thing happening here. It would be 100% of made hands until the break point then at the break point only the top 25% or so they have draws with them then the next decision point is like 10% of hands that are just strong draws no pair)

The discussion of solvers started when one poster said that GTO would never fold second set, and not everyone agreed.

Mostly iv studied simulations of only 2 or 3 players seeing a flop. But i feel comfortable drawing inferences for certain other situations.

Like i said previously, a solver will use sidecards, the additional equity and inferences they provide to differentiate in many cases. So theoretically a solver might bet/fold tta6 with the bare ace of hearts and without backdoor flush draw because what hands are left for gto solver to xr with, and the equity against them is not enough. This may also assume artifical constraints deviating from how solver would have prefered playing earlier parts of the hand.

But i am really not knowledgeable enough on solvers to want to go much deeper, and might not respond more in this thread, as we have gotten a little off-topic.

I had only studied heads-up scenarios that's why it surprised me when you said you had studied 3 handed scenarios in the past. I never used Monkersolver though and I know it is possible to do it on that software so that is why I was asking about it.

My understanding of game theory is that multiway pots dont converge to one single equilibrium unless you know 1 of the other players ranges therefore most simulators would oscillate between different equilibrium and create inaccurate calculations. I imagine the software has gotten better in the 1-2 years since I was actively involved in it though and like I said I didn't really look into Monkersolver that much so maybe it is better designed for these issues.

I never really actively pursued solvers in multiway pots since it wasn't possible to be completely non exploitative solvers seemed limited. There is value in having a sound baseline strategy though I guess.

as for your example I do agree with you solvers would value certain ttxx over something like ahtt6 but to be fair given your preflop action I doubt there's very many tt with the ace of hearts and not suited to the ace you would be playing that doesn't block the q or have a straight draw and if it doesn't have ah it probably doesn't matter enough to make it a fold. Probably like TT88 exactly would be a fold in your set of tens range. The ah difference also probably isn't enough to make it worse then something like 8897 IMO but I could be wrong

What hands are raising here for value at SPR 14 besides AKJhh and QQ?

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

1,534,220 trials (Exhaustive)

board: QT6

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
KcKsTcTd	17.09%	259,159	6,099
(AhKJh, AhKhJ, QQ):20%	82.91%	1,268,962	6,099

SPR 14 [ ]

SPR is like 4.6 at the point of raising but the point still stands, there are no worse value hands in villain's range

I mean I stack off with a lot of hands here on coordinated boards with the spr. ahqhjt ahqjht ahkhqt ahkqht etc khqhjt khqjht etc I mean I could go on and on. I personally usually stack off with any ahqh type hand most of the time as it's equity vs draws is amazing it blocks qq which is usually people's only value stack off hand and has decent enough equity vs it. I also stack off with aahh aakj akqj etc type hands. The issue that I'm trying to exploit as there are a lot of hands with a lot of equity on this board that people won't stack off with so it's incredibly profitable to deny equity A LARGE amount of the time and your range will have decent equity vs narrow ranges if well constructed. Just think about it this way if I stack off vs your proposed range w/ Ahqx you literally only can have combos QQxx exactly to stack off vs me. How often is it really the case that opponent flops top set exactly especially when you are blocking combos of it w/ a q. When you add in the equity of the hand its impossible for you to defend against aggression with such a narrow range. This is obviously a oversimplification but the point is you just won't have enough hands to defend and your equity when you do defend is lower than it would be on non cordinated boards which makes it very difficult to defend against wide ranges when your range is so narrow. The general rule I learned is the more coordinated the board the wider you have to defend to be unexploited. This is a pretty coordinated board especially in a raised pot expected preflop ranges. The SPR of 14 really isn't that high in this type of situation compared to like 994r.

Your stack off range seems too narrow. The more narrow your stack off range the less you can have qq in your flop raising range since your flop calling range is inherently wider and you don't want to weaken it vs mindless aggression this deep.

I think we systemically view the hand very differently. I think A LOT OF PEOPLE PROBABLY HAVE A RANGE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING. HOWEVER I THINK THE RANGE IS TERRIBLY CONSTRUCTED FOR TONS OF REASONS. So would I play the hand with that given range in mind and fold KKTT here a lot probably. Would it be a GTO strategy vs a solver or is it rigorous to exploitable adjustments HELL NO

I actually think this hand is a good candidate for checking on the flop. A couple of weeks ago I would always bet like top two or bottom or middle set here, but then I watched this video where a guy was doing solver analysis, and the solver was often checking back bottom or middle set especially without backup on these dynamic boards when spr was still relatively high. And it makes a lot of sense, because people will never think you have a strong made hand after checking back the flop (so they end up betting marginal hands into you, and betting or calling on your best runouts), and there are also a lot of turns you don't like. If we just always bet our strong hands and check when we are weak then we become very exploitable. And since we are doing a lot of checking on these super dynamic boards, we want to be checking a lot of strong hands as well, specifically sets or top two without any backup. Not getting it in against top set is a tertiary benefit, but is nice as well.

I think it's worth pointing out that TT is a less strong hand in this spot than QT, and we should prefer to call with QT far more often, in part because QT almost always comes with some form of straight backup at the very least, but also because it's just a stronger hand than TT in this spot, blocking both the possible value hands he might have and with twice as many outs to the nuts that others will either or both get a piece of or want to represent.