Then we should have a raising range and it should include AA. This is especially true if we are sure of our read that the 4bet means AA/KK, because we don't expect those hands to fold.

When you are against a range that's only the nuts and close to it, and you have the absolute nuts, why would you not raise? Why would you have a calling range in that spot?

What are you talking about?

If this is a preflop discussion, then clearly you should know why AA has little value when deep against decent opponents.

I dunno, there are def spots where I will not raise regardless of what I have. Say, I raise pre-flop, c-bet the flop and get raised. In many spots regardless of whether i have nuts or mid-strength I will just bet/call.

To continue my thought before...

This is an example where Hero's range is dominated. It is coincidentally an example where Hero should not be raising, IMO, with his entire range.

And, no actually, this is not a situation where folding is a must.

I chose the bet sizes to hopefully reflect some notion of reality, given the games I experience. I did not specifically choose the numbers to add up for any particular result. But, being this deep gives us options.

By flatting the 4b, even the very best hand reader is going to have a bit of trouble putting Hero on a range. He's never going to be able to eliminate KK+, and he cannot narrow it down much either.

But even against a lessor skilled Villain, flatting here has value.

Villain is OOP. He's feeling pretty good about his hand. He's likely to put in a Cbet on basically all flops.

You can easily set mine with [KK-] since there is 100bb in the pot and its only 35bb to call. You're getting (275+100):35 implied odds. Plenty good enough to set mine, knowing that it is very likely that you will get Villain's stack.

I personally would not continue without a pocket pair here.

You can play KK much the same way Miami played his hand in his PAHWM. Either you can get away without being stacked, or you can eventually sniff out that 1-5% of time where villain doesn't have KK+, and get some additional value. In order to not be stacked by AA, you had to give up some value against KK-. You don't get something for nothing.

With AA, you're still going to get another street or two or three of value against KK. As I said above, Villain is going to Cbet most likely, so you're going to get at least that bet in... and this will be at least as big as your 5b would have been. IMO, you're not giving up very much EV by not 5b here.

Separate to my previous posts in this thread.

I've been going around and around with this thread trying to see a few different angles.

I can only come to the following conclusions:

Post Flop. I cannot envision a point of effective stacks where I would not have a raising range, post flop. There will be specific villains with whom I will only take a calling station line. However, this doesn't really have much to do with stack sizing, but rather exploiting specific opponents.

Certainly, as stacks get deeper, starting hand values change, and draws become more important. But post flop, I try to take the most +EV line, given the amount of maneuvering room (i.e. stack size) left. If that means b/3b, or x/r, or b/c, or whatever, then that's what I do.

So post flop, it is false to say I do not have a raising range due to stack sizes.

Pre Flop. I most certainly can envision a point of effective stacks where I cease to have a raising range, pre flop.

One reason for this, is that my 4b/5b bluffing frequency approaches zero. I cannot say it is exactly zero, but I have yet found a situation where I thought a 4b/5b bluff was the right line, in a cash game.

So:
-- I'm (almost) never bluffing as a 4b
-- My 4b/5b range approaches [KK+], and is most heavily [AA]
-- My calling 4b (and 3b) range is wider

Why:

a) Against a subset of opponents who are complete unknowns I have zero requirement to balance my play. My only goal is to keep their range as wide as possible.

b) Against a subset of opponents with whom I have history, I choose to balance my play by having zero 5b range, and by calling 4b (and 3b) wider then (hopefully) what my perceived range should be. Wider in both direction, weaker (e.g. JJ-) and stronger (e.g. KK+).

~~~~~~~

My statements here probably start to break down eventually. I suppose at 1000bb deep, I most certainly will have a non-zero 4b/5b bluffing range.

So I set the following caveat to this post: I have never played deeper then about 700bb or so. Once I get to about 500bb deep, I usually become uncomfortable with the total amount of money at risk and look to leave the game. I admit I simply cannot play optimally with 600bb or more at risk. YMMV.

In LLSNL, this situation is extremely rare. It doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing. However for the normal LLSNL player, the proper course of action is to ask for a table change. You don't ever want to be deep and oop against a great player. If you have AA and you're ever 3 bet pf in this situation, your best move is to just do a "Kill Phil" move and shove. As people have seen me post before, poker is about skill, position and cards. If you have 2 of the 3, you'll be a long term winner. Shoving eliminates skill and position. And if you're lucky, the villain will be thinking two levels above you and call with worse.

100% accurate

Sometimes I forget where i am.