Cbet or no in these spots readless (assuming villain is a recrational)? Can also include sizing if you want.

1. A4 on QT6

2. A9 on T73

3. K2 on QJ7

4. 96 on J47

5. A3 on A95

6: 43 on 78T

7: T2 on 853

8. J9 on 684

9. 92 on 78T

10. Q2 on 2K7

11. 54 on AQ5

12. 52 on K5Q

Minr or limped pots?

Good question! I mean't it to be minraised pre. Beginning of the match, let's say 18-25bb deep before the raise.

Readless vs a rec, I would only minr hand 2. As played I would:

1. Check
2. Cbet (<1/2 pot)
3. Check
4. Cbet (<1/2 pot), check vs somewhat more aggro
5. Cbet (<1/2 pot)
6. Check
7. Check
8. Check
9. Check
10. Cbet (<1/2 pot)
11. Cbet (<1/2 pot)
12. Cbet (3/4 pot)

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk

I dont think it matters too much if you cbet or check any of those hands, but Id check boards where fish has tendency to continue too wide like T87, some 7x should fold, but dont think fish folds pairs to cbet so Id check that board with my air and would try to get to showdown 1., 3. but Id limp pre those hands, also kind of want to check 8.

This just seems really really bad. I seriously suggest revising your pre strategy.

Probably checking 1, 3, and 6, think most of them don't matter too much (as none said) and am fine with either line except for the ones that are obvious cbets.

Duncelanas, which of these hands you think are clear min-raises?

As for minraising I guess it also doesnt matter much, I remember coffees post where he said in gto only strict preferences is AA, KK minraise and 72o, 32o are folding.

I personally would minraise 2., 6., 7., 8., 9., 12.

Would like to hear what coffee has to say about preflop play with these hands.

What's your reasoning behind min-raising non-value hands vs fish? We don't care about balance, and they play worst in limped pots. Is it because they have large enough leaks in minr pots as well, so that we want to make a bigger pot to play for post with some hands that can make flushes or straights fairly often?

I definitely don't think "is it indifferent in GTO?" is the most relevant factor in designing readless strategy vs recs.

But minraised pots are bigger.

I don't think this is the only reason. For example, when someone folds to cbet in a limped pot, we make 20 chips. When they fold to cbet in a minraised pot, we make 40 chips.

I don't really want to talk about my fish strat that much because it seems quite different from a lot of people (I often disagree with the responses in hh threads vs fish when people comment on postflop spots), but I would suggest doing some hand filtering and seeing how your hands are actually doing in both minraised and limped pots, as well as looking at how some common postflop lines perform across boards. A couple hours of db analysis can probably show you some interesting things.

Granted I'm not some crazy crusher (just a 15s reg trying 30s now), but I do have 5% ev vs recs over a decent sample.

I dont really know which hands are better minraised or limped, also im not sure about limp/call range vs fish, so basically I minraise value + all hands I think are close limp/calls but kind of easy folds vs nai 3bet

I've had some coaching from a good 60s reg who advised me to minr only value hands vs fish (and he does so himself). I've been sticking to that so far (ofc mixing in non-value hands depending on reads), so my samples aren't really large enough to do such db analysis.

Do you agree with None on which hands are good hands to add to your minr range? Those hands are actually the first hands I mix in e.g. vs a player with a somewhat higher ISO%, for the reasons he mentions.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk

Theoretically they make the most sense, but no, I don't think they're the hands I would start with.

he probably would start with adding Ax, K2s, Qs2, 96s am I right? ;D

I'd guess T8o, 97o, 96o type of hands...

Perhaps you should take a look at your population tendencies. How much do recreationals fold to min-raises? How much do they 3-bet? What kind of hands do they 3-bet? How much do they ISO? What kind of hands do they ISO (all-in? NAI?)? And then go from there. If you believe recreationals are defending really wide to min-raises and 3-betting a lot, but don't iso very much, then your strategy of min-raising only value seems quite good. If that's not the case, then you're likely passing up on some very profitable min-raises (or limps!)

In the end, population tendencies can vary somewhat across sites and stakes (and even between HU and spins!), so best to take a look at your own population and go from there. Personally, I'd likely minr all but 1, 2, and 5 but 2 is close. Really all are quite close, hence check your tendencies

Goddammit coffee.

no money hu, everyone is coffeebot

If I may ask, when it comes to population tendencies, what's the logic behind not raising A9s?

It's pretty obvious when you think about it...

I assume A 9s, along with the weaker Ax hands are to protect limping range from the getgo, probably not limpjamming weaker Ax readless though but just calling non-all in normal size isos. A 9s could definitely be good enough to limp-jam even readless though. Limp A 9s, since its very close but cant call a 25bb jam after minraising readless?

"protecting your range" is not an ev-based reason :P

it probably has to do more with iso and 3bet frequencies

I think A9s can call a 3bet shove readless.

A9s can definitely call a 3-bet jam readless. Based on my own work from my limited database even A8o was a call against 3bet shove readless. I believe A7o and A7s were both folds tho.