I was more stating that as far as worse case scenarios go when we 4bet (i.e. everyone folds) it's not too bad considering how much dead money is already in (as that dead money is already way more than AA wins on average).

But I'm pretty sure I would prefer a call of a 4bet to $125 at this stack size, even with all the dead money. Although there are situations where that wouldn't be the case (toy example: everyone sitting on $100, UTG makes it $99, everyone calls, we wake in the BB with AA and shove for $1 more, obviously we want everyone to fold in that case). So there will be some point where the dead money outweighs getting called, but I doubt we've crossed that threshold here.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Ah, thanks for explaining. When you wrote that the EV of AA was less than the size of the pot (32bb) I thought you were saying the EV of RAISING with AA was less than 32bb which is basically saying that we win less when called than when opponents fold (after we 3bet). But you were saying the EV of CALLING with AA is less than 32bb (the size of the pot), which is conceivable to me.

I 100% agree to never call.

Thank you…apparently reading comprehension is difficult for me today

I could be wrong, but I think he's saying (and it is what I'm saying) is that the overall long term EV of AA is n bb/hand, and while I'm not exactly sure what n is, I know it is far less than the 32bbs that happens to be in the pot right now. So even if everyone folds to our 4bet here (not our preference) we're still relatively killing it.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Sorry for the confusing example, what I meant was that if you look up your typical win rate with AA in HEM or pokertracker, your win rate will be less than 3200bb/100 so you're perfectly happy when you 4 bet and take down a pot of this size

Winning 32bb is nice and we got kinda lucky to see a 3bet and cold call when 3bets are so rare… so we are def in an above average spot. But why should such a comparison be a factor in the decision?

It could be that our opponents are incredibly nitty preflop and will fold almost 100% of their range but are very loose and spewy postflop and will call off for stacks with any pair. In that very contrived scenario it is conceivable that it is more advantageous to flat pre, to increase the odds we win a stack.

I realize I am arguing against my earlier position now….my point is just there are myriad factors that should influence what we do, including opponent tendencies … but the fact we got in an above average spot with AA shouldn’t affect our thought process of what do do now in that spot.

Another way to say this is, it doesn’t matter what the overall EV of AA is. What matters is the conditional EV given the action we have already seen. The overall EV is totally irrelevant.

I think a lot of times we as poker players overestimate how much reads can really affect out decision. I agree that when it's a close spot reads should dictate the decision between 2 options but we shouldn't forget that most of the value comes from the specific hand and range that we are playing. Would it be possible that we're up against a player you describe? Sure but even if we are we still need a few things to happen. We need a good flop and for this player to decide now's the time I'm going to spew. Both of these things need to happen frequently enough to make up for the lost EV of not 4 betting. I'm just using this hand as an example but you can apply it to just about any decision where you're choosing deception over a more straightforward higher EV play

Agreed.

Btw, about our earlier tangent discussion, I had the cutoff wrong. It is TT. If BTN opens 2.5x and we 3bet BB to 8x, we would rather have the opponent fold when we have TT/AKs.

In tighter spots, the cutoff hand probably changes, but I’m not sure what it would be in any given spot.

Janda also notes that opening (for a 2bet) in LJ, we only want action with QQ+ and AKs…every other hand makes more EV when everyone folds.

Of course we also want action with a wider range the worse our opponents are, as Janda notes later on..,

Source from Janda’s book “NLH for advanced players — emphasis on tough games”:

Probably my last post because I don’t want to derail too much…

Clearly, playing against tough opposition the cutoff hands will vary depending on configuration. The conditional EV of 3betting a 2.5x CO open from the BB with JJ may be less than 4bb, while the conditional EV of 3betting a 2.5x BTN open from the same position may be greater than 4bb, implying we “want action” in the latter scenario but not the former.

Incidentally, Janda has a section in his “NLH for advanced players” book called “you don’t want action” and he argues similar points as above, even noting that most players he spoke to had a misconception that they wanted action with too wide of a range.

I think the idea of protection betting has caught on in recent years… perhaps your COTM was ahead of its time.

Maybe mods could corral the tangent discussion into a new thread? I agree it’s derailing and that the OP’s spot is a straightforward 4bet.

Gotta 4bet here. Otherwise, you'll go to flop 4 ways.

Make it 150 and shove most flops.