Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanBostick
I am betting a third of the pot with my entire range on the flop. With this hand I am calling off if the villain shoves.
If called on the flop, I am checking and calling a shove. We are not folding, and if we call the villain's shove we can catch some bluffs that our own shove would have folded out.
100% agree. Versus unknown villain even though he hasn't played a hand in two orbits and he cold-called a 3-bet, with these stack depths I just don't know enough about him to do anything outside of committing to the hand and accepting fate. Folding out all his bluffs or worse hands makes a shove a worse option IMO. Checking and allowing free equity realization I'd think is worst of all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosInEquilibrium
Not surprised to see that hand at all, I think most players 4bet range is KK+. So he has full combos of JJ,QQ. But he also has AK, AQs — maybe AQo if he’s a bit loose. So your play is fine IMO. Interested to see what bet size PIO prefers if we just give opponent {JJ,QQ,AK,AQs}. My guess is it favors 1/3 PSB with your entire betting range, but idk.
I was also curious about this so put it in GTO+. I used your exact stated range for villain. Results dependent on how I ranged hero:
When I ranged hero with a pretty liberal aggressive squeezing range vs a LAG-opener including a few 3-bet bluff hands like A5s & A4s (and 88+, AJ+, KJs+, ATs) then the solver liked checking near-entire range, mixing in about 10% shoves. (shoves mixed in sometimes with KK, QQ and AK). Very few 1/3 PSBs at 3%. If villain shoved after hero checks, hero called off with all pairs, and all AKs that had a backdoor flush. Hero basically folds rest of range. If Villain then made a 1/3psb after hero's check as opposed to a shove, the solver had a mixed strategy of calling or re-shoving with all pairs; never folding. TT was a pure call. I felt this was aligned with the thinking we are committed to the hand with TT (and any pairs we have here), but found it interesting the solver preferred checking as opposed to using the 1/3psb to deny equity. Versus normal player pool they probably aren't betting flop here enough with worse hands or bluffing enough, and are more likely to check back to realize equity, so I think I still prefer the 1/3psb in this exact spot in a real low-stakes live NL game.
When I ranged hero with a pretty tight 3-bet range (TT+, AK, AQs), the solver used a very mixed strategy with entire range (28% ck, 44% 1/3psb, 11% 2/3psb, 17% shoves). TT specifically was 66% checking, 33% betting 1/3psb. But always committing to the hand if opponent bet or raised.
If anyone is interested in geeking-out on the poker-nerd-solver-over-analytical line of thinking here I can share the save files or post screenshots of what I set up and ran.
