Not sure what the point is here ... but quitting, even a good game, correctly is a huge (and long term profitable) poker skill.

Consult preflop charts, not push fold charts if we are 15 straddles effective. We can have a raise fold range for sure. Where did it say he was auto 3betting? Whe aren't going to play for stacks every hand. Winning a few 400 pots alone is nice.

What you do vs a 3bet depends on how often he is 3betting. Do we get in 77? Maybe. If he is over 3betting, then open raise less hands you fold to 3bet and call/get it in more often. If he under 3bets then open fairly wide and overfold to 3bet. I can't give you one perfect answer.

move to his right and limp everything you might wanna play against him.

If this is not match the stack or as a 1/3 player you can't comfortably lose 5k, then even if we get it all in against him as a 2-1 favorite, odds are he will stack us before we stack him when he has 5k and we have 1.5k. That's the point I'm making. You absolutely want this guy at your table at 100bb deep. You dont at almost 2000bb deep unless you can handle huge variance well beyond typical.

Never tilting and handling losses better than our opponents should be one of our biggest edges.

Funniest **** ive read on the forums. Yeah dude, walking away from EV+ gambling in order to gamble the way you prefer is how you can prove you ARENT a degen.

This is correct(ish), i wouldnt necessarily do a 60/40 or even 75/25 for my entire br because 25% of the time id lose out on all my future poker winnings. But like, just realize a $5k all in 75/25 is worth $2500 which is like >100 hours of 1/2 winnings even for a crusher, so forfeiting that opportunity rather than like..idk, working overtime at your job if you lose until you rebuild your br is probably EV-.

But leaving a game because it is playing above your bankroll and superior skill matters little if the other players are low level competent is not. This game is likely -ev if you are directly to the left of the main V as effectively you are always UTG vs the real money bets.

"Lets go get some food"

"OK, how about sushi?"

"You know, Cici's has unlimited pizza and salad bar for "$15."

"I'm not in the mood for unlimited shitty pizza and wilted salad."

"But it's only $15."

"It's not what I want to eat."

"Look at Mr. Fancy over here--too good to eat Cici's pizza. Only a dumbass pays more than necessary to get his daily calories."

Poker doesnt cost me money to play lmao. Sorry youre a degen.

This is getting really silly. Neither side is doing anything wrong if they would or wouldn't like to play in this type of game.

Different people enjoy different kinds of games, and people play poker for different reasons, even if all are winning players.

Some winning players love to gamble, and some don't like to gamble at all, they just love to play games. Neither preference makes someone a degenerate.

Dont “both sides” this, Im just calling them degens tongue in cheek because the derision is so ridiculous.

It is silly for either of the groups here to criticize the other. But you're right that the derogatory comments were started by the other side. Of course, the OP asked how others would have handled the situation. "Leave the table" is a legitimate option, but not very interesting to discuss.

This is a forum where we discuss winning poker strategy, not how to have the most fun or whatever. Defending these people would be like defending someone who says “go all in any time you have a diamond in your hand”, because “different people enjoy different types of games” so its “a legitimate option”. Its equally as strategically sound and can be defended in identical fashion.

Its not a realistic strategic option except for bankroll reasons which I already acknowledged. strategically its only a realistic option to leave the table when youre especially deep because standard poker has more variance built in than 60/40 coinflips for a buyin or two. Even if you only had 1 buyin to your name, putting it in on a 60/40, and maybe even then doing it again for 2 buyins if given the option would almost certainly be worth it, because i would guess the risk of ruin for turning 1 buyin into 4 is gonna be higher than 64% anyway.

Not that ANY of this is what they are discussing, because this would be realistic strategy discussion, not nits pissing in their pants about what is actually pretty standard variance (albeit in a different form than you usually see it)

LOL...in another thread you argued for calling in the BB with QTs after a raise and callers, even though the solver throws away QTs here with a look of disgust.

Maybe you don't know what "winning poker strategy" even means?

Had a similar situation a few days ago. 1/3, 7 handed pro having fun at low stakes to my left straddles to 100 2k effective, 3 recs call with stacks 1k-2k, hero covers in bb and jams ATs, pro folds, original limper tank folds and later claims he had ATs, rest fold. Rarely I have seen people just call a straddle or blind raise here with a hand they are actually going to go with. But most of the time this just gets through, nice little pick up of 400.

Also, I think it is fine to change tables if you don't want to play with a $100 straddle because you're not rolled for it. Everyone has their limits and I think it is fair to recognize when not only your bankroll is at risk, but you won't play well. This happened to me once when I was playing 10 25 where the 50 was pretty much auto on, but after a while a pro started straddling to 200 every hand. (10/25/50/100/200 one hand, next hand 10/25/50/200, next hand 10/25/200). Once I got 15k+ deep but only 75bb deep, with several pros who were better rolled, I realized I couldn't play my A game. At one point after a rec left and another high stakes pro showed up I decided to leave because I didn't want to 3b KJs to 2k or continue vs 2k 3b with 99.

It's totally reasonable when you are there to play a $3 blind game maybe with a $10 straddle to not be okay playing a $100 straddle game sitting on 1.5k. However, if there aren't agro regs that play well short and there are some bad recs / whales, then you should definitely consider playing outside your comfort zone.

I guarantee I would be +EV from any position in a game where someone is straddling 33bb every hand.

The 150-200 BB deep hand where the raise was to 2 bb and 3 bet was to 4 bb? A GTO btn 3 bet is to 10 BBs there. A GTO CO cold caller has a back 4 betting range, whereas live players never do. And hero had a read that MP was just going to call, so hero was effectively closing the action. If youre blind following a gto range chart here youd be better off not even reading gto. I think folding QTs there is perfectly reasonable, i just dont think its a bad call.

I also dont see how that thread is relevant to this thread, sorta seems like just a red herring distraction away from the bad argument you made here

An effective 4 BB straddle when 300 BB deep at a table larger than you usually play and a 33 bb straddle when 100 BB deep at your normal stakes are completely different, partially because its effectively a blind ship. Also yes, i think we have all established that AT SOME POINT the variance may become too high. But anyone who thinks that point is 100 or 200 BBs deep simply does not have a baseline understanding of the standard level of variance we deal with is.

(Forgive me, Tomark), I can kinda understand both sides of this.

Whether or not I'd stay at the table would depend heavily on my stack size, my current bankroll, my position relative to V, my perception of his play, and that of the other opponents at the table.

While I concede to all those who say staying in the game is +EV, that would seem to assume we're capable of maintaining our composure in spite of the potential for huge swings. I might not play my best game if I'm stuck 2 buy-ins and have half my remaining bankroll on the table.

All that said, I'm generally in favor of anything that stimulates loose action and / or is likely to make my opponents uncomfortable. If I feel confident I'm capable of playing at my best, I'd stay at the table and play.

As for the ranges and OP's main questions - rather than try to pin down the ranges for the various positions, I'd be paying a lot of attention to the other players, looking for clues as to their hand strength, in the hopes of finding good spots to put in a huge squeeze to take down the dead money pre. I probably wouldn't get involved with too many marginal hands.

My thinking is that most 1/3 players are going to be pretty risk-averse, and will overfold pre, but when they call, they're going to have top of range.

We can theorise these spots and use an existing framework like the Kelly Criterion. But, also, we can be self-aware and notice how more risk averse we become in these situations (the vast majority of us are naturally risk averse according to the behavioral economics/prospect theory).

Recently I was playing a game twice as big in stakes, which I'd played a fair amount in the past, so was not nearly as extreme a jump as the game in this thread. Anyway I'd won a few pots and then found myself in standard spot in the SB with AKo versus a BN open and didn't want to 3bet because (a) I wanted to book a win (b) the BN was a competent pro and (c) it was late in the day and I was fatigued. So I just folded preflop and got up and left and told myself not to sit in the bigger game for a while until I knew it was either a legitimate shot-take on a whalish table or that my bankroll was weighty enough.

If we measure this 33bb straddle game in pure EV terms it's a clear win to sit, but only if we are able to monitor our level of risk-aversion. Whether that threshold of untenable risk aversion is not taking 60/40s or 70/30s depends a lot on how quickly/easily you can replenish a bankroll, as well as how much you scar psychologically from the "shame" of losing a large percentage of your bankroll in one session (for some that's a knock-out punch and genuine PTSD territory). I mean, if you're not willing to take a 70/30 then the question of whether you're to the immediate right or left of the whale is irrelevant.

sad this thread contracted lsnl syndrome

If you don’t like the variance then pay the 4 dollars a round and shove TT+ AK AQ.

I think people are missing the point. Lets say you get this range 2 hands in a row and V is obligated to call w/o looking at his cards. You are obligated to play both hands.

Your shove range is 3-1 favorite.

You start with 1500bb. He starts with 5000bb. There is a 46% chance you go bust before you can catch up to his stack. If you start with 500b, there is a 60% chance. If you have to start with a typical max buyin 200bb theres an 80% chance.

My point is when a true maniac goes on a legendary heater and builds up a 5k bb stack unless you both are allowed to match the stack AND have the roll to play about 10x your normal game size, you need to be willing to step away at some point. You won't be able to sit with him until one of you has no more money because more often than not it will be you.

You're allowed to rebuy. Yes, you will often lose your stack, but that doesn't make what you're doing a bad gamble.

This is a $1/$3 game it’s just about the smallest game you’re going to find and it’s just about the best game you’re going to find at the smallest stakes. If it’s too big for you then stop worrying about poker strategy and get a real job. The game is not magically a $100 big blind game that only high rollers can play. It’s a $1/$3 game where someone is putting $100 into the pot every hand without looking at their cards. You can play $1/$3 every day for a year and won’t find a better game.

sums up my thoughts perfectly for the "way too much variance" voices

if playing a 1-2k pot under ideal circumstances is intimidating to you then perhaps poker is not for you


was honestly shocked that "d) none of the above, rack up and leave" was even on the table for discussion - thought we'd correctly focus on me and my flaws and muffled thoughts on how i misplayed this situation