Or the zone where LRR's mean narrow strong ranges, which they generally do.

I wouldn't put the percentages as high as OP did, but my default assumption is a limp re-raise of a player who has been playing tight is AA-KK. And as I said, I have actually saved a TON of bets over the years with this. You guys are way too aggressive sometimes.

Yeah man. I'm sure you've encountered the LRR followed by set under set parlay many times over the years. HEAPS saved.

I think lawdude is correct. I think you guys are looking at the live reads thing incorrectly: 45 minutes is not enough time to realize UTG only limp RR AA/KK but it is more than enough time to realize if UTG is a spazz or just randomly back caps-etc.

People that limp re-raise basically fall into one of these categories (1) f it, might as well cap it (2) i have 4 bets lets get it in (3) people that have read 2 poker books and think they are some poker calculator genius and limp RR 67s JTs everyitme even though its often wrong (4) people that have AA/KK or exactly AA only.

if its an older woman that we have never seen raise/spaz preflop in 45 minutes which category are you going to put her in
(1) obviously not
(2) can't be this
(3) seems very unlikely
(4) thats all thats left

I think this is the super exploitable and correct way to approach this hand and one way that you can really crush live stakes games that I think one area that a lot of very fundamentally solid players could do better in.

He is definitely NOT correct. While this player might fit description #4 that is still not good enough reason to the flat the AK9 flop in a 6-way pot.

I missed the part where it's an older woman. It wasn't in the OP, and I still can't find it. Are you sure it's an older woman?

There's also another category. This is for people who re-evaluate their hand again seeing that it is multi-way.

(5i) It's six ways, and I think the odds of me flopping a set and taking it down are pretty good, and my mid-pair is decent, so I am going to pop it with 66-JJ. OR
(5ii) My QJs all of a sudden has good equity in this multi-way pot. I'm going to re-raise.

Elderly would change things a little, but I have to think alternative hands because there are so many combos that are not sets.

Also, I'm more critical of lawdude's reasoning of "tilt insurance" than the actual line. But, I am critical of both.

No mention of "old lady" anywhere except in the posts of people that are trying to make themselves sound less ridiculous.

A friend of mine had a hand recently that is similar. 20/40. FR. S/he AA OTB. 9 handed. Raise UTG two cold calls by people with gambuls. S/he threes, blinds, fold, UTG 4!, gambuls call, OTB 5! (cap)

Friend thinks UTG has AA-KK, maybe QQ.

Flop came the full nightmare

KQ rag.

checked to OTB, who bets (?). UTG called unenthusiastically as did the field.

Turn is another rag. Checked to OTB who checks (?).

River: 9
Check, check, gambul#2 bets, call, call fold.

Bet the turn, friendo.

That's exactly one of the categories that I specified. But lets be realistic, if some random woman that hasn't taken an aggressive action pre-flop in 45 minutes limp re raises us and our read is she is thinking: "QJs all of a sudden has good equity in this multi-way pot. I'm going to re-raise." then we are just coming up with reasons to justify the post flop action we think is correct.

There are plenty of players, men or women, that we can slam dunk raise this flop with, my point is just that we often will be able to identify those players with only 45 minutes of live play. There a chance they would have done something like, 3 bet preflop, raise 66, raise a limper, raise the button whatever at one point bit if they haven't then you should assume they have kk/AA most likely AA only until proven otherwise.

You don't have to take my advise, it can easily be wrong. I'm just saying that I've played logged an absurd amount of both live and online hands and they just have AA here an extremely high percentage of the time

By this you mean "call down and don't lose a ton" rather than "snap fold a AK9 flop"?

You keep saying it's a woman when the OP did not say it was a woman. It's a random player as far as we know. OP did not incorporate live reads into his OP. Live reads would change things, and placing them into categories as you suggest does have value. But, it's a rando as far as we know at this point.

seems like a read to me, although limited

OK. It was two pages ago, maybe I mis-remembered. If it isn't an old woman, this read is amazingly strong in 30 hands. Turns out I was right about gender based on Jon's requoting.

I'm curious if the "strong live read crowd" actually goes with their strong read and just folds to a single bet on the flop. If you're 99.97% sure, you should.

yes, id call down hoping I was wrong and make a note of what she turns over.

Perhaps. DougL added the "old" part at some point. A read definitely makes a difference here.

If we're just calling down with 99, I assume we're doing the same with KK?
And then if we have AA and the turn is a K we're calling down right?

DougL obviously the estimate is not sincere. And by now you certainly realize that.

You may have missed it, but I gave an attempt to make a better range construction. There aren't many women who play, so it's hard to know how much it being a woman actually changes things. My sample playing w/ women is smaller.

The "live read crowd" doesn't think OP made perfect sense, ldo.

Yeah, I was teasing him. That's what the was for. Maybe it was web-fail.
I'm cool with calling down. I don't think that the "you probably have to put in one more raise at some point" crowd is crazy. The "let's 3 bet the raise, call a 4 bet and then maybe one more raise on a later street before we stop" is generally wrong... unless you're playing 30/60 here, and then that's just standard. We have an action game and the population read should change.

OK. You know with the suited broadways that include A-big-suited, we're a huge favorite? With your range, depending on how you slice suits we're like 70%-75%. You'd be nuts not to at least raise and call down. I pulled out most of the broadway combos and it is

Board: AK9
Equity Win Tie
UTG 16.08% 15.96% 0.12% { AdAs, AdAc, AhAc, KdKs, KdKc, KhKc, QdQs, QdQc, QhQc, TdTs, TdTc, ThTc, TsTc, 9d9s, 9d9c, 9h9c, 9s9c, 8d8s, 8d8c, 8h8c, 8s8c, 7d7s, 7d7c, 7h7c, 7s7c, 6d6s, 6d6c, 6h6c, 6s6c, AKs, KQs }
UTG+2 2.99% 2.81% 0.19% { random }
MP1 3.03% 2.84% 0.19% { random }
MP2 3.03% 2.85% 0.18% { random }
MP3 3.06% 2.87% 0.19% { random }
BU 71.81% 71.80% 0.01% { 99 }

Not discounting broadways

Board: AK9
Equity Win Tie
UTG 12.80% 12.46% 0.34% { AdAs, AdAc, AhAc, KdKs, KdKc, KhKc, QdQs, QdQc, QhQc, TdTs, TdTc, ThTc, TsTc, 9d9s, 9d9c, 9h9c, 9s9c, 8d8s, 8d8c, 8h8c, 8s8c, 7d7s, 7d7c, 7h7c, 7s7c, 6d6s, 6d6c, 6h6c, 6s6c, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs }
UTG+2 2.86% 2.65% 0.21% { random }
MP1 2.77% 2.56% 0.21% { random }
MP2 2.80% 2.60% 0.20% { random }
MP3 2.76% 2.54% 0.21% { random }
BU 76.02% 76.01% 0.01% { 99 }

Sorry, I don't always get the jokes when focusing.

Also, I don't think just calling is crazy, but I'd throw in a raise on the flop intending to call down (I think not seeing a show down is nuts). As the read moves from "reasonably certain" to "strong live read", then the closer you come to just calling down. Obviously the extreme "I have a hole-cam", and it's a clear fold.

I am assuming the top chart is with the discount, and the bottom chart is without the discount.

My range had the suited broadways and lower to mid pocket pairs at 25% as likely, because I do put more weight into AA,KK, because well actions speak louder than words, and a raise typically means perceived value. So, they are all in the range, but default is around 25%, and I'd be willing to put it down to 10%, maybe 5% if it's an old lady.

I'd give women overall less credit for being aggressive, so I'd respect their raises more. But this is such a generalization, I don't know how much weight I'd put into it at this stage. When the decision starts to get close, sometimes it's worth spending a little more time trying to look at things like clothing, demeanour, etc. to strengthen the read to "break the tie" as it were. I think given that it's a woman, I'd change it to 15%, and the older the lady the more I'd bump it down to 5%. I swear, I looked at the OP twice and thought it said HE both times.

i think this hand does a good job of illustrating some of the problems with stove work in general and that its to easy to manipulate the assumptions to get stove around where you want it.

LOL , a random woman that hasn't taken an aggressive action pre-flop in 45 minutes limp re raises UTG and we assign her a range that includes 66 and QTs.

Are we supposed to assume that somewhere over the course of limping and cold calling for the last hour she has downloaded stove on her phone, started running equity calcs and figured out that JQs does well in a 6 way pot so shes going for the UTG limp rr?

Well, I mean, it's not like women can get ideas about poker any other way than on their phone during the 45 minutes they wait for AA,KK to LRR. Poker stove, ldo. Because you know women in the kitchen and all that.

You do realize it's a low stakes game, and anyone can go card dead for 30-45 minutes, right?

If you're discounting some random hands with as little as you know about the player, then I think you're wrong. Low limit players in particular bloat pots pre-flop and attempt to win them solely to scream yippie!!!

if thats true then its likely that player would have raised at least once in the previous 45 minutes at the table.

Yes you can be card dead for an hour and fold every hand. However, if thats the case then our read is the person has folded every hand for the last hour, the implication here is they have played some hands, yet just never raised pre-flop.

I've heard the speech, "Well, I couldn't win with my good hands" many times. Some players are patient for a while, and then lose their patience and show you the least expected hands. There's all kinds of random in low limit games. So, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, OP said 30-45 minutes. And, we don't really know how poetic the OP is being. OP seems to add some romanticism in there, so we're not sure exactly how many hands were played.

For the 10th time. You don't have enough data to just assume her range is AA

Not sure this really belongs here, but since we are talking about super narrow ranges, here's an interesting situation I faced on the river tonight:

Button straddles, 6 players call in front of me, I call with 64hh from the cut off.

Flop is 644, two spades. Everyone checks to me, I bet, and at least six of us see the turn.

T on turn, same action, but maybe we lose one player.

5s on river. Early position player donks and it folds to me. I have two players to act behind me: one of them looks interested and one of them is telegraphing a fold. If I knew they were both staying I would consider going for the overcalls here and maybe get the super parlay of one of them raising a flush. With one obvious fold though, I go ahead and raise it, the player to my left cold calls and the river bettor reraises...

I have a lot of history with this player. This is what I can say for sure: he would not three bet me on this river with an ace high flush, he never has a 4, and he never has TT. After tanking for a bit and coming to these conclusions, I realized a) that I couldn't cap and b) that he is showing me a straight flush here probably more than 50% of the time.

He did have the 32 of spades. *puke*