The following things can both be true:

1. Good players can get away with either winning or not losing much playing bad hands because of their enormous skill advantage on the remaining streets.

2. Good players can sometimes become overconfident, or suffer from the same gambling compulsions and boredom as other players, and end up playing hands that they actually lose a bit of money on long term.

+1

As a comparable, I suspect there are many crushers like Schneids and BicycleKick that can get away with playing more hands at Canterbury, online, or any card room purely for how much of an expert they are at poker.

Then again, if you watch old videos from Ninawilliams on DeuecesCracked, Ninawilliams was considered at that time to be tighter LAGTAG but was still epic crusher per Table Rating and mining on Cereus that was possible during that era.

Then again, pros like ChrisDaddyCool or Dr. Elo were for sure MEGA loose LAGTAG but were crushers and still are crushers.

All depends on route you choose. I prefer to attempt to play like Ninawilliams based on my preference for consistency without major variance/volatility by playing tighter.

We are button. Tag CO opens. The blinds are tight.

A hand like 89s has 38% equity...J9s has 41% equity.

These seem like they should be 3 bets. Do you 3 bet them? Perhaps worse?

I used to 3 bet in spots like that when playing with people who were foldy postflop. There aren't very many players who are anymore though.

With tight blinds I'm 3-betting these hands always. I'm in position and if villain's range is tight from the CO it simplifies my postflop decisions on a lot of boards. If Villain's foldy on later streets, all the better.

Not sure how many other hands I'm including. Possibly 87s depending on Villain's postflop play... Not sure how tight Villain is, but if they're opening ~17% here then our equity with 87s isn't much worse than our equity with 89s. I'd open even wider if they've really been fit or fold.

This is true. In fact, I was thinking the same thing when it came to semibluffi raising the turn or betting the turn with UIP overs. There was a time when you could get people fold third or fourth pair with a bet.

These hands look pretty and it's tough not to raise them. I'm gonna have to be a little more selective in the future.

I'd put a typical TAG open in the CO at about top 35%.

I like opening up my range more against pre flop LAGs since they tend to give up more easily. This assumes I have a tight image. This also assumes he is not combative post flop. I'm talkng about the type that pushes his luck but then gives up easy after they've been played back at.

1) UTG opens, all call, we are in BB with A3o

2) HJ opens, Button calls, we are in BB with A3o

3) HJ open, folded to us in BB with A3o

Call
Fold
Fold


For me

1). 100% call every time

2). I personally call. I'm sure RIO is bad though but vs unknown HJ open and BTN cold call, I call 100% until proven otherwise because I play bad.

3). I personally. I'm sure actual equity may be bad vs unknown HJ open range. I call 100% until proven otherwise because I play bad.

Thought about the answer to this for a couple of days.

I would personally 3 bet J9s and 89s on BTN vs CO TAG open and loose blinds in 20/40 live LHE at Canterbury. Assuming I think I have given enough credibility of myself vs CO TAG that I think I can triple barrel on enough run outs to make the CO TAG fold vs flop cbet, turn cbet, river cbet assuming blinds folded.

How much looser or tighter to go then J9s or 98s, would depend on the current read of my personal image of myself as HERO that I perceive the CO and the blinds has of me as the HERO.

Was unable to find a video of Schneids I think he posted on Cardrunner where he 3 bet quite light vs open when Schneids was in Cutoff or button or SB but don't remember the actual hand he had. Think it was on Fulltilt or Stars 30/60 LHE though so may not be comparable to 20/40 LHE at Canterbury.

Expert insight from Rodeo for an unrelated hand but shows the mathematical calculation on when it is profitable to 3 bet preflop:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=1016

7 handed hijack raises I have A9hh in the sb

??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd 3 but it's bottom of my range.

No. Well sometimes I’ll 3b 98s but it has to be against the right opponent and I’m not always doing it. Usually folding.

Yes you have position, and if the co were a weaker pidtflop tag who isn’t sticky, I’d 3b a lot worse, but generally I’d rather have bigger cards that could have co dominated. Especially if he’s sticky.

I agree. I think players in general are more sticky than they used to be.

I think I can 3 bet wider against the laggy type who shuts down when played back with...assuming I have a tight image. Obviously I am not talking about the combative type, just the pre flop bully.

We are getting an action-closing 5:1 to call, needing 16.7% equity to break even. Hands like 72o and 32o have just about exactly 20% equity against the villain's ranges.

This is pretty clearly an any-two-cards situation.

Given the very wide ranges of the villains, we should likely have a generous 3-betting range. More stoving should identify what it can be.

I’m assuming you would call if your hand was 8❤️

I 3 bet those and worse

Call
Call
Call

3 bet

Situation I see all the time:

25-50 or 20-40 (although it also happens in 8 sometimes).

Decent player and/or TAG and/or nit opens UTG or UTG+1. She should have a pretty tight range.

Maniac who 3-bets ridiculously wide 3-bets. He could have almost anything.

Folds to Hero in position. Forgetting about the debate about whether we should be capping or just calling, what sort of range should we be playing here?

And now, same question with Hero in the BB, with it folding to us after the 3-bet.

Poker Stove is your friend.

I basically know what PokerStove says about these situations. But I am interested in what people think here, especially due to a couple of other considerations that PokerStove doesn't care about but I do.

I'd prefer to have absolute position on the pair of them (and everyone else).



I'd be very happy if the blinds fold, but wonder if my putting in the 4th bet matters a lot vs the actual blinds in the hand. If it doesn't, I'm curious as to whether or not "decent player and/or TAG and/or nit opens" would do me the favor of defining her hand by capping some of her range.


If I considered calling, I'd do it with hands that don't mind all 4 bets going in preflop.



You and I might disagree with ranges. What do you consider Is this AQ+, JJ+? Is this 99+, ATs+, AJo+, KJs+?


I'd at least consider how showdown bound the original raiser is. If she makes a lot of post flop folding mistakes, then I'm more interested in giving action. Like on a TT3 board, you see her b/f the flop when both you and the manic raise, that's fun/exciting.


Once you have ranges. I assume one of the pluses here is that you can trust UTG or UTG+1's action. If she knows that she can use the manic to make you miserable and is correctly tricky in doing so, it is time.

Good post and kinda what I was looking for.

Put the initial raiser's tight range closer to your latter range. I think it's pretty obvious what to do if the initial raiser's range is top 2% or something.