You are forgetting about the times he has AA/KK and you are drawing thin.

Jamming preflop isn't as good because you negate your positional advantage. You want to play postflop even if the SPR is 1-2 because of how much better you will play flop/turns/rivers than your opponent (we naturally play better because we are in position and hopefully we have a skill advantage as well).

The small 4bet helps you define your opponent's range and also let's you win a lot of the time when you both have the same hand and miss the flop/turn.

He will also call hands like AQs/AJs/KQs so you get to stack those hands if you both hit, where as if you just jam, he will fold and you lose a stack.

A solver will always 4bet small here IP, so you would need overwhelming evidence to prove to me that open jamming 150bb's is a better play. The "maximizing fold equity" reason isn't enough imo.

Another more subtle reason as to why 4bet jamming isn't as good (and why we should fold vs an unknown as a default) is because of bunching theory. Since UTG open raises preflop it is very likely he has an Ace or King in his hand which will reduce our equity.

It's the same reason why in a 9 handed game in BvB. If it's get folded to the SB and he has QQ and BB has AK and they get it all in preflop. The AK will actually be a favorite even though a solver will say it isn't. The solver isn't taking into account the 7 players who folded hands that very likely do not contain an Ace or King in them.

This will turn the AK from a slight underdog into a slight favorite against QQ.

Shouldn’t we also be considering the initial raiser’s range as well? Looks like we are only thinking about the loose player’s range.

Also, maybe a small chance that the maniac doesn’t always 5! KK-AA and can find ourselves in a crappy situation.

Yeah that's why you fold against an unknown but UTG would need to be very tight to make AK a fold with Main Villain's information.

One more point about bunching effects (I call it Dead Card Theory since it's a cooler name/easier to remember).

Dead Card Theory:

If you are playing a 9 handed live game and you are in the BB with A4o. Let's say it get's folded to the BTN who raises $5 in a $1/$2 game, SB folds. A solver will mix between calling and folding here but you should always fold.

Why?

Because solvers do not take dead cards into account at all. Their solutions are based on all 52 cards being equally likely even though we know this isn't the case.

You should fold because the BTN's range is now weighted towards higher cards/stronger range since everyone folded before him. That means the bottom of his opening range will be less likely than a solution will say.

This is one of the reasons solver solutions become less and less accurate when there are more players at the table. Heads up NLHE (2 players) is virtually solved but 9 handed hold em is not even close to being solved.

Dead Card Theory ftw!

I was aware of bunching theory but i like dead card theory better, definitely a cooler name. Thank you for explaining, I understand why you are saying 4bet small is better.

I get too caught up in one train of thought, for example how awesome it would be to fold out JJ, and forget about all the other hands we need to worry about.

Fwiw, even though I suggested jamming, if we did 4bet small and get 5bet I would 100% fold.

Yes, the initial raiser's range is just as (if not more) important as the 3bettor's range.

Also, we really shouldn't be talking about solvers and GTO. Live 1/2NL hasn't been "solved".

Yeah no problem man. It helps me too to type out my thought process.

Poker is tough and very complicated. That's why when I see guys like Bart Hanson laughing at the limp first in strategy in EP and saying it's a clear and obvious raise it makes me think he doesn't realize that there are multiple strategies you can use to get very good at this game.

Super common response that is 100% wrong. You get better at exploitative play by understanding GTO/Solver solutions. You can't separate theory from exploits as they are forever intertwined.

I think its important to know what the solver/gto says is theoretically correct so you can figure out why that is. When you know that you can understand the differences you see in actual play and better know how to exploit them. It gives you a baseline to go off of, to deviate from in the best way given the ways your opponent is deviating.

100%.

It gives you a deeper understanding of the game and then you will have the ability to make your own strategy based off your knowledge instead of just copying what some guy in a YT video tells you.

"Poker is tough and very complicated. That's why when I see guys like Bart Hanson laughing at the limp first in strategy in EP and saying it's a clear and obvious raise it makes me think he doesn't realize that there are multiple strategies you can use to get very good at this game."

Tough is right. I like Bart Hanson, but there are for sure areas he falls short. In defense of him a little bit, i actually do see him quite often say he prefers a limp behind in certain spots, particularly when there are already more than 1 limper in the pot, especially if theres 3 or more. He does also talk about spots where theory says x and he advocates for y based on exploititive reasons.

I could see where one could be successful limping everything at small stakes, but my opinion is that a blended strategy with lots of raising but a fair amount of limping behind with high implied odds hands could be best. That is what I myself do.

We're talking about a guy who just 3bet to 40 in 1/2, with AK likely being at the bottom of his range while not even knowing if he's ever 3bet before in his life so we don't need to resort to solvers to know we're likely smoked and we can just fold.

Players should learn how to play against someone's individual range, which although is easy to distinguish varies from player to player, not by memorizing GTO charts while using horrible GTO bet sizes to play 1/2.

No this isn't right. Ranges is a GTO concept by definition. We don't care about ranges vs highly exploitable players that's why you play differently vs fish than vs regulars.

You play your exact hand vs a fish - you don't play your range vs a fish because that idea only exist inside the framework of a solver.

The OP did say that the 3bettor was extremely active aggressive though and at times maniacal so he is definitely wider than your typical low stakes 3bettor that probably does only have AK and up.

I think by learning someones individual range you mean their tendencies as far as what they open and call with, etc? I agree with that, but you do need to have a place to start from. For live play we know that players are not going to be accurate to solved ranges, but we do know what the average player's tendencies are and how they are going to be calling much wider than solved ranges but they are typically raising much tighter than solved ranges. And then you have players that you see are good regs and they will be close to solved ranges as far as what they open with.

Appreciate the discussion. A couple of points:

I agree that original raiser is uncapped.

The in between caller is capped.

The 3 bettor is both uncapped and has an ATC range, though not ATC 100% of the time. IF H shoves the $$300 and it folds to main V he will call with something like AQo+, JTs+, 77+, folding all the rest. IF H raises and main V shoves H is high fiving the dealer and calling.

Further action by any other player complicates things.

H has no bankroll or tilt concerns.

The main question is have you've ever seen him 3bet or squeeze like that before, and if so what ranges of cards (if it went to SD) did he do it with?

Anything from T5ss to AA.

Loose table? 4b and get it in. If they have Aces then gg. Ideally they fold pre but if they call, play poker.

Your range is a GTO concept. Villain’s range is an actual thing.

God, i have doodoo blocked, but he said range is a gto concept by definition? LMAO.

Computers invented third level thinking in poker. Balance was invented by a computer. BY DEFINITION.

Yes that is more specific and correct. I should have said we don't care about our range instead of ranges when playing Fish. Thank you

lol@blocking me.

It became clear to me you don't understand poker theory on even a basic level after this post. I guess your feelings were hurt when I corrected you?





In theory if you have studied 3bp's in depth you realize you rarely go 1/2 pot OTF on Ace high boards. The deeper you get the more 44/55 your opponent's will have which makes you want to go even smaller on your cbet. (this doesn't matter vs fish but you need to understand theory for your baseline knowledge)

Our opponent being a fish is all the matters and makes us want to go small OTF because he will be too wide preflop and this will have the highest reward to risk ratio.

Saying what GTO wants to do when playing vs recs and then advocating GTO flop sizing (you got that wrong btw) show's me your thought process isn't fully developed yet.

Getting over your ego and admitting you don't understand something is part of the learning process.

Results: H raises to $150 and it folds around. Not too exciting but a nice outcome.

It's 1/2, it's probably only $200. just jam. Since you just sat down, people will call you light. You can hilariously up and leave and pocket the double up or do the same if you lose.