Nah, no MUBS it's one consideration amongst the entire universe of considerations.

But consider this: w/ 16 unblocked {AK} combos out there, it's not a stretch to say we're going to get coolered occasionally. Approximately how often? How many combos would he get to showdown with on a [TJQ] texture? Overpairs+sets+two pair (the suited combos) are 27 combos, add in 16 combos of {AK} we're talking about hero having the idiot end ~40% of the time stacks actually go in. It happens less frequently w/ flushes but still a not an impossibility (just guessing but it's prob about 10-15% of the time we make a flush and stacks go in we're overflushed), it happens SIGNIFICANTLY MORE frequently when we have naked pairs and it's a simple fact that naked pairs are by far the most likely made hands we are to acquire postflop. So again, I submit: we have significant RIO problems here , especially when it matters most--when the pot is at its biggest.

If that's the case on one of our best textures, how is that not an important consideration? Conditional on stacks going on, you're in much worse shape than you seem to realize. And when you go to the flop w/ SPR of 1.7 you better believe a huge chunk of your EV needs to come from those pots where stacks are going in, by virtue of the fact that V's stack will, indeed, frequently be going in since it's so easy for him to go cbet-jam w/ all his overpairs and nutted hands. That's the RIO argument against flatting.

(BTW referring to the [TJQ] scenario specifically, on top of all this, if stacks are going in prior to the river on [TJQ] then we actually discount our equity further bc most hands in V's stack off range can boat up or counterfeit us or draw to broadway so almost none of his hands are drawing truly dead but even some of hero's nutted hands [like our idiot-end straights] will occasionally be drawing dead.)


Of course there's still a huge universe of outcomes that don't result in stacks in going in, but mostly that happens when we completely whiff (and most of the time we WILL whiff) and lose immediately bc we have to fold to a cbet. So most of times when stacks don't go in it's by default: we will not flop well enough to continue unless we plan on floating a ton w/ 9-high. I guess you can cobble together a floating strategy, it won't be as effective compared to when stacks are deeper but maybe you can make it work, just think it'll be hard at these stacks depths. Some V's will even get sticky w/ A-high That's the equity realization argument against flatting--V can much more easily deny our equity than we can deny his.

Your suggestion of flatting up to 12bb seems way too loose-passive.


TBH I'm disappointed you didn't actually engage the substance of what I wrote and just dismissed it as MUBS, and you didn't even address what I wrote about equity realization. Still waiting to here how you propose we realize all our equity when we're at a range disadvantage w/ an SPR of 1.7 that sets up perfectly for stacks to go all in by the turn before we even have a full opportunity to bink a hand.

I guess V's sizing is standard. Don't see why that label has any influence on our decision, all that'd mean is we rarely see a 3bet sizing we can continue against pre and that's just fine. We can play this hand as basically a pure open/fold pre against "standard" sizings and we should have plenty of better hands in our opening range to where there's no need to defend this one. In terms of raw hand strength I'd guess {98s} is somewhere at or below the median hand in hero's opening range.

I agree with this. Your stack is just not deep enough to hit your implied odds.

On the turn you will have to fold if the villain bets again. If the stacks were deeper you might pick up additional outs of the turn and end up getting the right price to make your hand.

fold

or...4bet 16BB, then lead 11BB into V and jam any turn that remotely works for you, but V has only 41BB so you're pretty much screwed unless your image is KK+ with such a line

r/c at around 6.5BB seems ok as a speculative play

Over-realizing equity is absolutely a thing, just not a big thing w/ SPR <2.

You absolutely are mubsy for giving V 0 bluffs in all your examples despite the range you assigned.

Still folding pre seems fine readless.

As played, obviously never folding flop.


-huor



Edit: I appreciate the effort and quality of your conversation though. Nice to see it’s not just walls of text about clicking buttons here after all.

Fair enough. I didn't include bluffs in that scenario because I assumed they'd be pretty sparse on that [TJQ] texture and with the stack-off range I gave V being 43 combos wide we'd need a lot of bluffs to change our equity appreciably (I'm estimating that 20 bluff combos--which is a big stretch IMO--gives us an extra 800 basis points of equity when we stack off from ~60% to ~68%).

Perhaps a teeny bit of unconscious MUBS creeps in when your recent graph is a 45 degree straight line down for the last several months like mine has been

TY for your kind words. I really like it here.

youhave to call the flopman

Guys, isn't 4x 3-bet sizing OOP standard these days?

It's not trivial for him to just barrel through turns.

You're awarding him fold equity for bets that haven't been made. If there was ever a time to do that, it wouldn't be after he makes some generic 1/3rd cbet.

i like the way u talk

The bigger issue is that when we're up against shallower stacks we need to be somewhat tighter. (We can still certainly have some calls tho.) 98 isn't quite good enough to call (T9 might be so it could be close), nowhere near good enough to 4-bet for value and as a bluff doesn't work as well as some of our Ax hands that have removal vs. villain calling range.

Thank you

The broad issue imo is Negreanu said "in modern poker you have to think in terms of ranges" and everybody thinks it's mission accomplished because they memorised their 3bet range from all positions.

Why should he continue bluffing if you've already gifted him his future fold equity on the flop? You must have hands that go call-fold, what hands will be the bottom of your turn range on bricks that you'll trivially let go? If the only marginal hands you call flop with are pairs, which ones do you choose to fold turn given they are all effectively the same value? (you better have crisp recall on hours of combo work to avoid over/underfolding)

What hands will bluff brick turns when checked to that can fold to a x/jam without equity self-owning?

What hands will bluff when diamonds fill? (all those marginal pairs? Ok but don't bytch up and x behind when it goes x-x-x. Then there'll be a thread talmbout I can't value bet my flush, all the regs check-fold! Yeah because you don't have any air)

98 is too important a hand for your range to fold flop and those are the reasons why.

ah, so all these people meant the "relative" sizing which is almost 25% of V's stack, not the absolute sizing?

Whoa NOT folding that flop if I'm calling pre.

Pretty much this

Furthermore, no one is mentionning that those suited connectors 98ss arent doing amazingly well post vs a large 3b range - 45 or 56 might play better post vs this 3b range.

But as played and mistake aside, once you hit a gutter to the nuts + bd sfd on a rnbw flop, Imho you have to peel at least once - the fact that it sucks because you are not deep enough to make it a fist pump call and have to act precautiously regarding further streets although you are drawing to the nuts makes it even more obvious that the pf cold call was ool

+1 for the syntax