1/3 NL

Button: Cold calls a lot pre flop. He bets often when checked to. I'm not sure if he has something or is sensing weakness. Heads up I feel that he likes too float but there is a third player in the hand. He has a 300 stack. I have 600. BB has 500.

I open 7s7c UTG to 15, button calls, BB calls.

(45 in the pot) As4s3c....BB checks, What should I do?

Bonus question....What should be my play assuming it was just heads up with the button?

If this is a raked game, 77 is opened from UTG very rarely for standard sizing. For 5x open when the effective stack is 100bb, this is just a fold preflop.

When we open for sizes larger than 2, 2.5, or 3x....we have to tighten up considerably. So 77 becomes a pure fold UTG.

On this flop, you should be mostly checking heads up. So basically always checking multiway.



If this is time rake, you can open 77 UTG. But for 5x, this is either going to be very low frequency or a fold.

Check multiway, check heads up.

So are you saying this is okay to open for 8$? Or the rake structure means we MUST open for larger sizing (presumably to build a bigger pot with our value hands) and thus this is always a fold (given the rake)?

My 0.02$ I cbet this for small sizing here as I would cbet my AX hands. I deny equity to KQ, KJ type hands and if I get a call I feel okay as I like some turn cards. I'd hate to just check fold. I would bet 15 1/3rd sizing but I wouldn't have made it 15 UTG pre, I would've opened for 10 or even less...but maybe this is a mistake given the rake??

So, lots to unpack here, but I'll try to hit all the points and also be brief:

Our preflop ranges are shaped via:

- Rake or no rake. And obviously, if there is a rake, the amount.

- Open raise size

- Effective stack size

- Position

There's other things to consider, such as specific players and other such stuff, but that comes *after* the above.

You need to decide which open raise size you'd like to use. If it's 2x, 2.5x, 3x, 4x.....or 15x. Completely up to you. That gets factored into the rake and stack size.

Then you get a range of hands.



The higher the rake and/or the higher the open raise size and the smaller your stack size = the tighter your range has to be.


For example, the widest range would be:

No rake (time rake is considered no rake for this)
Small open raise sizing
Large stack size
Late postion

The tightest range would be:

High rake
Large open size
Small stack size
Early position


And then there's everything else in between.


In the above scenario, 77 in early position is mainly a fold (70% folding 30% open) with rake, normal open sizing, and 100bb effective stacks. So, if any of those change, so will the frequency. Higher rake = fold more. Larger open size = Fold more. Smaller stacks = fold more.


Same if they change the other way. No rake = less folding. Smaller sizing = less folding. Deeper stacks = less folding.



So, to answer your direct question, the rake doesn't require us to raise our open sizing. It requires us to simply play tighter. Which means having a tighter open range in this example. The fact that he decided to use a 5x raise size means we need to play tighter *even more so* than the rake requires us to play. So, it pushes the 77 from a sometimes open raise to a never open raise because he added more to the fold or raise equation. If that makes sense.

Making a new post since this point needs to not be lost in a novel:


What you *absolutely cannot do* is take opening ranges found on the internet that are solved (or done manually) based on "normal" bet sizes and apply them to games like live low stakes where people are opening for 5x or more.

You are now using ranges designed for something else entirely. Your range needs to be adjusted to the raise size.



Let's say in the above scenario, we are the button and UTG raises to $15 and we have a $300 stack. Which is 5x in a 1/3 game. We would normally be calling at some frequency with hands like 87s, 65s, 65s, 44, 33, 22.....etc.

But, that's when the open raise size is around 2.5x. You are now making some hefty mistakes calling with these hands. You need to tighten up and shave those hands off your calling range.



This is a *HUGE* leak at LLSNL. Players using ranges designed for smaller sizing when the sizing is significantly larger. You can make up for some of that when being deep stacked. For example, a $15 open raise in a 1/3 game.....you can use the ranges for 100bb 2/5 game. Since this would be a 3x raise in a 2/5 game.




When it comes to calling, our opponents make the decision for us. They decide what the open raise size is going to be. Then we have an easy (but boring if the size is too large) decision to make. When it's a large sizing, we just have to play tighter. It's boring, but that's just how it works.


When it comes to us raising, that is on us. You have two choices: Open for normal or smaller raise sizes and play more hands. Open for larger sizes and play less hands.

If you try to raise for a large sizing and play a lot of hands like you would for smaller sizing, you're just going to bleed money over the long run. This is why most LLSNL players who aren't completely losing.....have such flat or up and down break even type graphs. They are just bleeding $15 here and $15 there with hands like 87s.

I see. In other words his open sizing is a tunable parameter as one of many and because he tuned it too large he has to drop the bottom part of his value range here which includes 77. But if he had opened for 10 it would have been considerably more okay/less borderline...all other parameters being equal.

Thanks.

Yea this is exactly what I'm doing. I'm playing a table where I try to iso one limper with 15 dollar open and get 4 callers from the CO with my 78s. I keep trying to remember this "3-bet or fold from everywhere but the BTN" strategy that I still don't 100% understand but I think what you said is part of it. Problem is if I follow what you're saying I feel like I play maybe 1 hand per hour. Our dealers aim for 20 hands per hour (casino tell us) so that's about 5% of hands or like TT+ AKos/s which just feels so nitty and face up to me. Funny thing is even if I do this (because I've been card dead) and I open or raise with premiums, I still get 4 callers after having been folding for an hour.

So one question I would have is: What (if any) calling range do you have at a loose passive table where UTG opened for 15 and you're in (let's say) CO? How does this range change (if it even exists) if say there were a few callers in front of you?

This question is tough for me. As I won't play a game where I'm limited to 100bb and people are opening 5bb or more. I play either bigger games via blind sizing (5/10, 5/10/25...etc) where the standard raise is 2-3x......or I play deep stack games like 1/3 with 1k or match stack games. Or 2/5 1500 cap or match stack games.

This way even if they are technically raising 5x in a 1/3 game to $15, we are deep enough that I can play 100 or 200bb (or larger depending) strategy that I would at 2/5 or larger.



Now, it does happen when for example, I'm playing a 1/3 1k cap (or more game) and a $300 stack raises to something like $15 or $20.....I basically just tighten up to something like the range below. Some of it is a 3bet, some is a call. But the general idea is that we are playing a range that is appropriate for the open size and stack size.

To clarify, if the stack sizes ahead of me are 100bb, then I'll use something similar to the range above. I might expand to a few more pocket pairs as we have better chance of stacking someone with a set if there's a few more players.

If all the stacks are much deeper, then it reverts back to more of a "normal" range.


And yes, if you're playing a 100bb cap game where people are opening to 5bb+, if you're playing properly, it's going to be a very, very boring game. Hence why most any decent players move up as fast as they can where they aren't playing a short stack strategy with low SPRs.

We also don't care if pots go multiway, unless only a slightly larger size gets us heads up. Since that's always the common excuse. "But if open for 3bb, I get four callers."


It's rare that moving from 3bb to 5bb changes the game from 4 way pots to heads up pots. It usually takes a much larger raise size. And that inherently pushes whoever calls very high into their range and defeats the whole purpose.

So, if you're at a table where you get 4 callers for $10 in a 1/3, but you get heads up for $15......you *might* be able to justify that. But it has to consistently do that. If not, you either have to keep the raise sizing smaller or you have to play far less hands for your $15 opens.



Contrary to what some think, theory based poker still works in multiway pots. There is still an equilibrium solution. It's just no longer guaranteed to never be -EV like it is in HU pots. But, there is a sound theoretical strategy that you can use as a baseline to deviate from....just like HU theory.



So, a studied player shouldn't feel apprehensive about playing multiway. They should simply just play the proper multiway strategy.

I just limp in but that's me (noting that 77 is the bottom of my range for me in EP). And while I realize that a lot of people don't limp 100% of their playing range from up front like I do, I think we have to at least consider why we might choose between raising and limping sometimes. Having a loose preflop Button who attacks postflop would be at the top of my list of reasons for not bloating a pot preflop, especially with a hand like this (which can almost never take any postflop heat unless it makes a set).

I'm either/or on the flop. 3ways I'm not going to hate a small bet on this board, although with this Button in the hand it makes if far less attractive. Think we can often just check/fold.

HU with Button I think I'd more check because there is no other person to protect our equity against, and we mostly just want to keep the Button's range very wide. On the other hand, we're often going to get enough craptastic runouts where we'll be hard pressed to find a call down, so ending the hand on the flop is never a bad idea (although it is questionable whether the Button will let us do that). This is a big reason why I'm not a fan of our preflop raise; this guy is just going to steal so many pots that we've bloated for him.

GcluelessNLnoobG

The raise pre was fine. If you're in games with a lot of squeezing/3betting, I would even limp/call it, which usually ends up in a multiway pot anyway (I'll take that any day over a fold pre).

Bet 20 otf, that's a great flop for you it hits your range and we have an auto-bettor otb who might decide to pot it and keep potting it, and we would have to fold the best hands. Bet now to keep the pot under control.

Thanks for all the advice ITT. I'll try implementing it tmr at the table.

I literally just read that a A-4-3 flop OOP is more often a check HU because your AX hands need less protection vs say your KX on a K-4-3. MW makes it more of a cbet. But as OP asked about HU as well I think this falls under a check with the plan being to x/c and peel with some favourable turns - 5, 6, 7, a spade.

edit it was actually talking about cbetting IP on an A-4-3. OOP I would think you'd cbet even less.

So the pre flop charts that I see online are more applicable to bigger stack games or bigger blind structure games? How much bigger of a stack would I need to be opening 77's UTG? How much tighter do I need to be playing if I only have 100BB?

Is the theory behind folding the 77's here that I am not getting the implied odds that I need? I'm not quite sure regarding the reasoning here. It seems most players in these games have an open limping range. I was always taught that open limping is bad. Maybe they are playing it right and I'm wrong.

I have a feeling that I am misapplying a lot of what I have learned so far.

BTW...I never mentioned the amount of players in the game. I am referring to an 8 player game. Just in case your response is to a 9 or 10 person game if they still exsist.

Thanks for the responses.

It doesn't sound like solving is advocating an open limp. He's saying in his opinion it should be a fold pre. This seems like more of a math and theory based approach and doesn't take into consideration player types. Poker is not a game of absolutes and I think everyone would agree you can't say to "always" do this or "always" do that. 77 is not a hand that will hold up often post flop so its hard to justify putting $15 on this holding. You need to win a big pot which means you need to make a big hand and it just won't happen that often. For me 77 is at the bottom of my range EP. Given the right circumstances I may limp if I feel that the players at the table are likely to pay me off if I do flop a set. So I guess my play would be with 77 I sometimes limp, I sometimes fold, I rarely raise.

As played here though I think since we raised pre we need to take a stab at this OTF. The A hits our perceived range and could let us take it down.

look. there's absolutely no way live poker is going to be an enjoyable experience if you fold this utg. also at 1/3 i doubt people behind are 3betting enough to make this a play that gets punished. you should open smaller. in both post flop cases check and probably call a small bet from the button and fold vs a large one. the idea this hits our perceived range hard is wrong, bb's range is the strongest on here and he's probably not leading in practice at all even though he should

Pretty sure this reasoning is 99% of why I make money at poker playing the way I do.

FWIW, if the first card I see is a 6 or less when I'm in EP, I don't look at the other one. 77 happens to be at the very bottom of my range in EP, but that's just where I personally draw my line.

GcluelessnitnoobG

the only reason you're winning is because people are pure opening mixes? lol

i get what you're saying but i dont think it applies here and you should just try to get better if that's your only edge on the local 1/3 competition

also the blasphemy of folding a5ss

I mean a huge reason I win is because I'm not playing / continuing with the hands that most others are for enjoyment's sake (although they can't do it profitably).

Gfoldingisn'tfun,butitsthemainreasonIprofitandmyop ponentsdon'tG