Button had all sets in his range for sure. The re-jam is very strong in general.

At least only potentially one of your 9 outs was bad. So you had that going for you.....which is nice.

The BB has jammed. So when the button overjams, he is committing himself to a showdown. In such a situation, how exactly do you expect to be exploited here by folding so much?

Maybe i didnt explain my point very well. I am not neccesarily concerned about the button exploiting us (if he somehow knew that we were going to fold basically our whole 3 betting range to this action), but rather if its theoretically correct for us to fold this big of a hand in a bloated 3 bet pot equitywise.

If we forget about the very rare occasions where we flop top set here, we are kind of at the top of our range in my opinion with AKcc. We have to give up with alot of hands from our 3 betting range in this particular spot, for example all AK off combos, 1010,JJ+ maybe some lighter 3 bets that we also whiffed the flop with and dont want to C bet 3 ways OOP.

So from that point of view, i am asking myself if we are indeed gonna overfold if were not felting with this hand. But as mentioned earlier, i am still unsure of the conclusion -because i feel like this is a really close spot either way.

Maybe this is just a difference of terminology.

When you say "overfold", what I hear is "fold too much on a theoretical level".

The problem with being too theoretical about spots like this is that in order for us to answer your question theoretically, we have to also answer questions like:

1) What should we theoretically be checking here?
2) What should the BB's range be?
3) What should the button have to be jamming over BB?

So, I'd say two things about this. The first is that it is theoretically possible, when we check, that the sequence jam-jam will happen so infrequently that it is totally fine for us to fold our entire checking range every time it does. For example, we might check here and be able to have a very profitable call of the BB's all-in every time the button folds, or perhaps have a chance to check/raise the button when the BB checks. The exact sequence of actions we ran into strikes me as an extreme worst-case scenario that won't often happen.

The second thing I'd say is that I don't think being too theoretical helps us here. We need to use reads as well. The button has tended to stay out of our way when we 3bet--but now he has called $85 more after a 3bet from us and a cold-call from a shorter stack. What do you think the chances are that 2 overs and the nut flush draw is in good shape when the described player then wakes up and reshoves his entire stack?

Yes, but I was definitely expecting one of the other two

You're applying HU concepts to multiway pots with dry action. We could fold 100% of our range here, and that doesn't allow BB to shove 4/3p with an exploitative range just because he knows that if BU shoves over him, then we'll be locked out of the pot. What would such an exploitative range look like?

Button can't just shove ATC just because he knows we'll be shut out of the hand either. At the very least, he can only do this with a range that's getting the right price against BB's shove.

Yeah i guess so. What i have in my mind is the picture of our entire range in this spot, and what we will likely do from a theory standpoint with different parts of that range-not that i am afraid of the button exploiting the hell out of us.

Further i think the second bolded part, is the biggest argument for making an exploitative fold here. That this particular action of jam-jam when we check happens so infrequently, that we can simply fold everything comfortable except sets.

I agree with the fact the reads and as accurate ranging is one of the keys to land a proper conclusion here. Because buttons range surely needs to be very tight for us to be folding this hand (wich is a reasonable scenario given descriptions and the reship line), due to we are in decent shape against almost everything-including sets taking into account all the money that went in pre+ the donk shove by the BB.

easy fold. I dont even bother reading descriptions since they usually entail results oriented thinking whereby hero is trying to paint the picture of how tight opponent was when they got out of line one time. It's a 3bet multiway pot and 2 people want to get it allin and neither of them have the NFD or even 2nd NFD and you block some of the potential oddly played traps like AA/KK/AQ/AK or whatever, of course someone has a set. You really think anyone is gonna overjam to fold out hands when they're on a draw? If you have 76cc or something you want everyone in the pot not everyone out once someone else has already shipped.

best part of the hand

not on a draw, but with hands that beat BB's shoving range but don't stand up well 3-way? ya

Again there is a gap between the words you're using and what I take them to mean.

When you say "exploitative", what I hear is "we should theoretically be calling but we have a reason to deviate from theory". That's not what I was arguing in the paragraph you cited. Instead, I was arguing that it is possible that it is theoretically correct to fold this hand, and indeed it may be possible that it is theoretically correct to fold our entire range.

I think maybe you have this idea that "GTO" demands that we have a non-nut calling range in every all-in scenario. This is almost certainly not true, especially when we're up against more than one opponent.

I didnt mean to put words in your mouth. But to be clear: to me it is an exploitative fold when/if we decide to fold hands from the top of our range hand combos, wich i rate AKcc to be in this 3 bet pot. It is an exploitative fold in my opinion in the sense that we read the button to be non balanced, and strongly weighted towards nutted hands (sets). He is deviating being too weighted towards an exclusively nutted range, and therefor our action just follows his wich means we are also deviating with making a tight fold. Sort of like a domino effect.

If your intention with this discussion is to nitpick and having a detailed discussion about our definitions of certain words, that is outside of my level of interest and very little constructive.

No, I wasn't trying to nitpick. I was actually trying to figure out which of the following two things you meant to have a conversation about:

1) Is folding our entire checking range theoretically correct?

2) I'm sure that theoretically we should call, but is folding OK here for practical/exploitative reasons?

I've been making arguments trying to settle both of these questions. I actually think that regarding point 2, we should be folding given reads--which I think you agree with based on what you said.

What I wasn't clear on because of the words you were using is whether you actually were asking question 1, or whether you consider question 1 to be settled (with the answer "no").

It seems from your last post, though, that you think that on a theoretical level, the button should have a "balanced" range that ought to include some weak hands, and that for that reason we "should" call. I actually think there's no good reason to assume this. Rather than assuming that theoretically the button should be "balanced", and that him having a strong range is a theoretical deviation, I actually think that for the button to jam over the BB, who cold-called a 3bet, his range is SUPPOSED to be strong. And if his range is supposed to be strong, then we might actually be theoretically correct to fold our entire checking range here (unless we check QQ). I think calling, not folding, is the "exploitative" play here if we would have had an appropriate read on the button.

No, i i was not assuming that the button "should have a balanced range". That is you putting words in my mouth pretty much.

By the way, i think point nr 2 is what i am trying to debate ( but after all these words exchanged between us i am not so sure anymore lol).

I was simply making an observation standpoint, that IF we are gonna make what i mean is an exploitative strong fold here: it is because the button rates to be unbalanced and is reshoving/stacking off with nutted hands exclusively. Some players might have a wider range here because they play more laggy/balanced (use whatever term you feel like, but you get the main point), that includes smaller flushdraws as an example. Other players might open alot lighter, peel our 3 bet alot lighter and also reship yolo allin with a wider range than this particular villain.

This villain may be totally unbalanced towards the nutz with this move (and i am not making a judgement call if that is right or wrong, that is besides the point really and is a big discussion on its own). And if such, our decision is dictated mostly by the buttons likely shovingrange. If he is choosing to be totally unbalanced towards the nutz, i guess we need to follow him with making "ridicilous" tight folds also from the top of our range. The domino effect mentioned in my last post.

OK, I think I understand what you're saying now. The confusion for me was that when most people on the forum say "balanced", they mean it in a positive way, i.e. they think it is always good to be balanced. You're using that word with no connotation.

I agree with the point you're trying to make, which is that if we fold this hand we're probably folding everything we show up with (except QQ if we check that)--I just don't think folding everything is necessarily "exploitative" here, because I don't think the button is necessarily "deviating" by having a nutted range. But that's the "big discussion" you mentioned in your last post, and not really relevant to this hand where we have to use reads because of the BB's tendencies.

CMV, you haven't changed

Exactly. I use terms like balanced as a compass needle to understand how and where our villains deviate from balanced play or "GTO" if you want. Wich in the next step forms the base regarding what kind of exploitative adjustments i need to make in my own game.

In my opinion i am instastacking off here with this hand if our villain is anywhere close to playing balanced, because that would mean he have more combos in his reship range that we crush (like smaller flushdraws).

In a vacuum i am felting with AKcc every single time here in a 3 way bloated 3 bet pot. If i am gonna deviate from that vacuum, that is simply because i am up against a villain that is so unbalanced himself towards the nutz that he basically is forcing me to fold close to my whole range myself.

Hope we understand eachother better now Vernon. You are obviously so good with words, definitions and game theory+ the fact that English isnt my first languague so that may lead to some extra confusions and we talking past eachother

I’m just gonna go ahead and repeat myself because it’s the only point that’s relevant to this discussion: those terms don’t apply here. Not in theory, not in practice, not otherwise. You can’t possibly overfold here. There’s no directly exploitable strategy.

Unless the two are colluding, they can not exploit an overfold strategy by having one person shove and the other person shove over top.

Theoretical terms like these should be used very sparingly in MW pots and should not be used at all in a case where multiple opponents take betting and raising actions, particularly when there’s a dry side pot.

You mean like a set?

or TPGK type hands. but then not everyone agrees those are in BTN's range

What was your plan in more detail?

I think one problem is that cring the guy who is taking a stand could be kind of rough. When you check he might shove jj, tt but he'd have a hard time calling if you bet.

If it checks through the turn is also kind of tricky much of the time.

yeah but BTN rejammed. So what exactly is he accomplishing making someone fold TPGK when there is already an allin ahead of him for a sizable amount? If he cant beat TPGK then he's already lost the pot. It's like bluffing into a dry side pot.

If we're going to be talking about having a theoretically balanced range of hands here wouldn't it make more sense to just bet the flop with this hand because there's really no way in hell we're checking any better hands in this spot and there's probably no other hands in your c/r range other than your one combo of AKcc.

From what i have seen, i think nobody have argued that hero needs to have a theoretically balanced range here?

Regarding your point though, i believe both checking for deception (like we are giving up with AK off or JJ, and we give the green light to our opponents to take the pot away with a wider range,when we in reality is planning to stackoff), or betting/getting it in is both fine lines.

Like, i think doing both some portion of the time is fine depending on dynamics, different villains, stacksizes and other factors. And i will check here with both AA and topset at some frequenzy too based on the same principle. If i am up against spesific kind of villains where checking is preferred to maximize EV, like for example overaggro lags or a possibly tilted villain, i will check all my valuehands 100 percent in this spot.

We should definitely be capable of checking strong hands on Q94tt first to act in 3-way pot. We’re not doing it as much at this SPR and with the fish squeezed between us, but that’s the same reason balance is irrelevant.

no i mean like, if BTN has AQ for example, he views that as ahead of BB's shoving range, so he's not folding, or calling.