You're both right. If you want to work pot odds as ratios, you do it your way and get 1/(1+2.5)=28.6%.
If you want it as a percentage, 60/210=28.6%.

yeah, I was in the middle of the session and wasn't fully concentrated so I had that brainfart moment that my whole pokerlife was a lie. luckily it wasn't

[ ] fold
[x] call

What about folding preflop? I don't love the open from MP. Or am I a nit?

MP+3 is the hijack. It's probably towards the bottom of a reasonable range, but likely ok. Honestly situation dependent.

If villain is playing optimally, he should be x/raising his worse FDs and x/calling more of his high FDs since they have more showdown value.

this is simply not true. why is this called 'optimally' ?

edit. didnt wanted to sound so offensive but optimally is very wrong word since my getting of poker is that it should be a lot better x raising stronger fds for numerous reasons

this

I am not opening K9s 100% here in HJ. Only when the situation is suitable.

I see what you did there

Seems like this would be exploitable and add way too many bluffs to our range.

I'm probably c/c or even c/f my weakest flush draws here (maybe that's nitty).

I like to balance my c/r on this flop with some combos that have backdoor potential, rather than "getting crushed by a bigger flush" potential.

For example, my c/r range on this flop is probably nut flush draws, sets, and hands like 56 (backdoor straight/flush) that will allow me to barrel turns or else get away easily against bad turns/aggression.

I'm also more of a live player, so maybe I'm way off here.

I say optimally, because I'm pretty sure it's the GTO strategy here. We can't x/raise all of our FDs because that would be overbluffing. And when choosing which draws to bluff with, it's better to bluff with our draws that have less showdown value.

Your "getting of poker" is fundamentally incorrect here. Run it in a solver if you don't believe me.

You're right that you don't want to bluff 100% of your FDs because that would be overbluffing.

You could just x/fold your weaker draws, but x/calling your weaker draws and x/raising your stronger draws is exactly backwards. You want to x/call your A high flush draws that might win at showdown if you spike an Ace or even unimproved if your opponent shuts own. You want to x/raise your weaker draws that have no chance of winning unless your opponent folds or you hit the draw.

Is anyone playing the nose-bleed high rollers where GTO is actually happening? I understand the concept and have studied it, but to be in a tournament where it's actually applicable for a high enough percentage of the field is very rare.

Better ways to exploit soft MTT fields than attempting to get to a GTO level.

Again, I'm more of a live player though.

Anyone?

pretty much this

i dont have to run it in a solver to know that weaker FDs have huge reverse implied odds. i know that we can't raise all of our FDs. solver will probably raise all of the FDs in some frequency and stronger one in higher frequency than weaker.

dont start this bro

Isn't this an argument for c/r? Our AhXh can still barrel most turns with significant equity after we c/r flop and miss turn. Otherwise WE are who will be shutting down, not our opponent. I think yours is a stronger argument if we're ip.

Are you barreling turns when you miss flush? Are you value betting turn with weak flushes?

Maybe my post-flop game is weaker, but c/r weak flushes seems to put you in a difficult situation no matter what comes on later streets.

haha fair enough

The reverse implied odds are less of a factor at these stack sizes. Run it in the solver dude if you’re so confident.

I said pretty clearly in my post “if villain is playing optimally”. In reality, yeah villain could easily have NFD here. I still think it’s a call.

everyone get cover:


"almost GTO" vs "exploitive" debate incoming.

Fire in the hall!

Wait, let me grab some popcorn and letsaagoh

poloplaya made some very good posts itt and i def agree with non nut fds being better x/raises otf rather than nut fds. first of all they benefit from generating fe and secondly high card fds can x/c two streets a lot due to the additional equity that they have over weaker ones where those have to x/f turn a ton.

I did. It's raising stronger FDs more than weaker FDs. It's calling weakest at 90%+ freq like 53 85 84 etc

edit: I've runned it for multiple stacksizes, obv it's calling lil bit more of the NFDs at this depth (AJhh-A8hh are calls 100%) but it's pretty similar.

Anyway, this is not something worth of dispute because players are constructing their ranges differently here. I'm fairly positive that from theoretical standpoint it's a lot better to raise stronger FDs simply because they have a lot more equity/implied odds than weaker ones. That raising weakest because they have less SDV way of thinking is so 2014 imo. For example we call A6hh turn is brick, x x , river is brick we x villain bets 40%, are you calling A6hh in a spot where villian can vbet very thinly/bluff with stronger hand ? Where is your SDV ? SDV in these spots is so overrated imo. Your strategy is obviously profitable in todays games but EVs of those things run pretty close, its not like you said : CALL STRONGEST RAISE WEAKEST IS THE WAY TO GO !!!!!!!!1111111 . Due to simplicity I also agree with your strat but don't be so exclusive just because you're doing it so and it's (i assume) going well for you, it doesn't mean it wouldn't go better if you did it other way.

I'm very surprised by the result here tbh...