It's a good point about the tiny bet. Frankly I messed up by not considering that in my reply.

However, in a standard casino $1-3 game players tend to think in absolute dollar terms as much as in % of the pot. In that circumstance I would still interpret a flop raise as a typical raise unless the out-of-turn lead bet was a clearly uncommon amount (say $5 or $10).

But standard casino $1-3 games don't have people buying in for $2000. OP probably has the best sense of the prevailing mindset in this game, and I would default to that. If I had no idea because I just sat down in this game, I'd treat the flop raise as a legit raise which means folding AK on the flop. Obviously I'd update reads based on the progress of the hand.



The only reason I can see to raise QQ in the Villain's shoes is if it's very likely the bettor has a club draw. That raise is not for information nor for "protection" per se but rather to get value from a worse hand that will call.

Maybe I'll write a thread just on this subject. Long story short, we use all available information to come up with our "prior" (Bayesian), which we use to make a decision. Based on what we observe from that point on, we update the priors.

For example: If 90% of older men play as we expect and 10% consciously don't, we gain immensely from the 90%. For a while, we give back some of that equity to the 10% who are outsmarting us. But over time we watch showdowns, make mental notes, and realize they're not playing to stereotype. Quickly (after one or two surprising showdowns) that new info becomes much much much more important than the age stereotype.

That doesn't mean our stereotype was "wrong" in a global sense or that we were dumb to use it. It means that we used it well, updating and discarding it once we had good reason to reject it. If a year from now we find that most 60+ men at the table are light 3-betting and check-raise bluffing rivers, we can update that prior too.




Each of us will have to decide the ethics ourselves, but what I love about poker versus say job interviews, is that in this case the stereotype empowers the individual! For those willing to play opposite stereotype, yes, they will gain an advantage. Their advantage will be huge against those who can't update priors. Their advantage will be small against us, because we watch the game and update priors. This is the exact opposite of a job interview; someone from a marginalized class can't typically decide to use the interviewer's subconscious bias against them because it's not an adversarial zero-sum game.

Thanks for the replies everyone!

Light 3b and getting 4+ callers routinely is a great way to set fire to your bankroll.

So no, I don't worry about these clowns at all.

LOL. Well put

Lol at all these comments about us getting “exploited”

Well said. People are shaped by their backgrounds and experience. It's silly to think this would not spill over to poker.

To add to what you said about job interviews, we are not job interviewers or cops or college admissions officers. If we stereotype people in order to aid our poker decisions, we are not doing an injustice.

I agree with you, that we are making money most of the time and losing money occasionally. However, if the stereotype is totally inaccurate, as some, seem to think, we are just giving money to our "victims," unlike the job interviewer or cop who takes things from them.

I'm pretty sure my limp reraise bluffs work so often partially because of how I look. Fine by me.

Good post. Ditto to ES2 post. Ethical play in poker has nothing to do with political correctness. If your analysis is wrong it is -EV.

Bolded says it all.

I would call river. In my game there are OMCs who never 3! queens and only 3! AA or KK. It would be an easy fold for me pre against them. You're right though a true nit would never stay with 2200 in a 1/3 game so the player is hard to categorize.

I'll respond to some of these just in point form:

- is a preflop raise going to narrow down an opponents range when we're so deep?
- is a preflop raise (in EP to boot) more likely to narrow down our range (admittedly I guess this depend on our style, but having our range narrowed down and OOP deep is a horrible result)
- as you say, a raise won't be able to create a comfortable SPR to stack off to, so the drawbacks of having our range potentially exposed (again, admittedly dependent on our style) doesn't seem too worth it
- yeah, we'll miss some value from hitting 2 outers against dominated ranges (but we may also fold out a large part of those dominated ranges with a preflop raise)

- having to put in 15% of our stack (effective against the other guy) hoping to hit a potential 2 outer against a potentially dominated potential overcaller is meh, imo

- agreed that we're not going to get in too many difficult spots against this guy, even OOP
- however, in the game of RIO vs IO, compare what we lose vs what we make versus various hands he has, especially OOP (for example how much we lose on K high flops vs AA against how much we win vs QQ on those same K high flops); yeah, we're not going to hurp durp off our stack in the bad cases, but if it's negative overall then it's still not profitable
- and being OOP will make any moves we attempt to do postflop much more difficult to make (as we won't have the information of whether he is betting a street or not)

Git'snotagreatspot,imo,butwilllikelydependonhowawe someatpostflopyouareG