Angel:

Why would you expect zero light shoves from a solver? Surely if we are folding hands of this strength (or at least close to it) then it becomes profitable for V to shove *some* hands as a bluff, even if it is just a few combos of AWs.

I think he meant zero light shoves from a person to this sizing. To a person, it looks like what it is and a person would assume no FE.

Oh, I wasn't talking GTO whatsoever, to be clear. Clearly in theory if we're including this combo in a 3b NAI range, and then proceeding to fold it to the 4! jam, we can be exploited somewhat easily. Solver would be ripping stuff like A5s/A4s at whatever mathematically arrived-at frequency.

But OP is talking about the final 150 (out of 5000 runners) of a $50 (not a 60-man $5000 with 75% of the field sickos). I'd be amazed if OOP is *ever* looking down at A4s, rolling for 15%, and stuffing it in our face with a 4! jam. If he does, honestly, he deserves the chips generated if IP folds. I'd also be amazed if IP is ever light here given how large the 3b sizing is (combined with stack depth and position pair). Results-oriented sure, but look at the empirical evidence presented by OP: OOP was nutted, IP wasn't light. As we expect to be the case almost always given the situation.

An aside: I'm reviewing the actual hand again here and I think if OP gives the field/table enough credit, the EV of flatting is boosted a lot by the fact that HJ has 20bb and SB has 16bb--in a skilled enough field where we expect the proper jams from those two stacks (over our flat), and further where we expect the opener to reshove "light" over such a jam (e.g., he opens, we flat JJ, SB jams, opener rejams 88 all-in), flatting becomes more attractive

Of course, as I mentioned above, this is the final 150/5000 of a $50, so on average, I expect most people to play miles too tight with reshoving (more succinct: like p*ssies)--but food for thought with regard to how the various preflop EVs of different actions are affected dramatically by table/field tendencies.

As the pot becomes more and more multiway, JJ loses more and more EV, because it isn't a combo that likes 3 (or more) people seeing a flop (at this depth). E.g. the moment the BB completes, your JJ is pretty sad, because a fair bit of equity has been siphoned away from you. So I'm inclined to flat JJ less in a situation like this (because of player tendencies), although I'd still be happy to trap AA/KK because of how much less desire they have for protection.

It doesn't matter. Once you 3bet to this size it is call. Maths is on your side. Against a range of QQ+, AK you have 38% and you are calling 400k to win 1.15m (34% BE). If he ever shoves Tens, AQ, or has a random bluff you are printing. Folding here is insane.

eggs, is your software able to evaluate these types of situations?

ie: query for all hands where...

opener is in mp1, mp or utg+1 opens with => 30bb stack, raise size is between 2 and 2.75bb.
hijack, mp1 or mp 3bets with a 25 - 35 bb stack to between 3x and 4x the opening raise size.
all actions fold in between. opening player goes all in.


it may well be the case that AK is under represented relative to the big pairs since people aren't shoving 100% with them. alternatively could be that AQ/TT are not as uncommon as we may intuitively expect.

of course the entire data set woulnd't be a perfect proxy for this exact spot since this is deep into the tourney (plus ICM), making ranges tighter. but a way to mitigate some of this is if you could also filter for hands where the BB is => x (imperfect obviously but better than nothing).