none of those hands should be calling a shove here tho, so their equities are irrelevant. 99 is easy shove lol.

Well, we have to make assumptions to figure this out(unless you want to know when it becomes unexploitable, but that isn't particularly useful/practical imo)

If we assume he 3-bets 10%(AJ+, ATs+, KQ+, KJs+, 55+) for value, and will always call a shove w/ these hands, then he needs to be 3-betting ~20% for a shove to be +Ev, so if you think the avg reg 3-bets 20%+ shoving is fine.

Disagree. JTs, KTs, and ATs are calls imo.

thanks for the reply. I doubt a reg would 3b/call AJ/AT KQ/KJ this early? So I guess he needs to 3b slightly less than 20% for it to be profitable and if he has a well balanced 3b range I guess it's fine

orly, maybe Im running bad but regs at the 30s/60s seem realllly tight with their 3b/calling ranges early in the match

i am pretty sure it's a fold agains the average villain, 3bet ranges are too much weighted towards value in general. i hope that people who say flatting don't do it with the intention of setmining, if yes, you have a horrible understanding of implied odds.

No, you are prolly right, they prolly don't call w/ those hands, and they prolly don't even 3-bet them, except for maybe ATs, so it is kinda irrelevant. I was just being conservative w/ my calc anyway, so it is prolly closer to 15% than 20%.

And also, I doubt someone that folds some of their value range to a jam has a wide bluffing range in general since this would be very exploitable.

they are not calling a shove for 70bbs on the first hand with these hands.

Or at least we can say, they are not USUALLY calling shove

Wtf, this please.

if we assign villain a calling range of 55+, ATs+, AJo+ (which is probably a standard villain's calling range in this spot imo), we have 36.07% equity according to Equilab.

f...fold equity

EV=f*200+(1-f)(1650*0.36-1450*0.64)=0 (because we are looking for the breakeven point)

...we do some maths and... f=0.625

So villain has to fold 62.5% of his 3-betting range for our shove to be +EV.

x...his 3-betting range (in %)
8.45%=his calling range

(x-8.45%)/x=0.625

x=22.5%

so he has to have a 3-betting range of at least 22.5% for our shove to be EV+. So against our average (unknown) villain, our shove is EV-.

And i really really doubt that flatting is better than folding, so folding is the best play.

^^^ I think you just pwned DHCG's comment.

I honestly don't mind playing someone ALL DAY who is willing to get it in with 5's like that.

I also find it incredibly ironic that DH wants people banned for posting bad strat, (which apparently is strat that doesn't concur with his) while his own is mediocre at best.

.

This hand has been ****ed up from the start. Either 3x so you can more profitably 4bet shove, or minraise so you can call the 3bet.

I always start a game 2.5xing and then based on villains tendencies will change it later on. I see what your getting at and maybe I should mr or 3x. Although, I do think minraising will increase most villans 3b % and 3x will decrease it so maybe it still isn't a profitable shove if we 3x. I don't usually alter my raise size purely based on hand strength vs (most) regs but I guess when I'm an unknown to him it's fine

Yea you should never do it based on hand strength unless playing droolers, but first hand, villain has NFI if you minr or 3x as standard, and regs will try to 3bet bluff ASAP, and their range will be very wide on the first 3bet, so you can either minr-call or 3x-shove.

yeah it makes a lot of sense, thanks for the input

Your math logic is a bit flawed there. Ppl who are 3betting 55+ are usually 3betting a huge range. Also, why would he 3bet/call 55 and not 44? Why is 55 the cutoff point?

No, Don't shove.
This isn't a good move.
I'll run the calculation for you although it is pretty common sense not to shove.
So the ecuation is: you are risking 1450 chips to win 200.
Now, in order for this shove to be neutral cEV you will need to have 200:1450 odds (1:7.25). Which means that if villain calls 1 time out of 7. this is an almost neutral cEV move.yo
Modifications to the actual odds: Even when villain calls, you still will not be loosing all your money.
Let's be generous and assume that he will call your 4bet with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,1010 and AK.
AK = 1.21%
AA = 0.45%
KK = 0.45%
QQ = 0.45%
JJ = 0.45%
1010 = 0.45%
So he will be calling 3,46% of the time IF he is given any two cards.
But we know now that he has cards good enough to 3bet. Let's assume he has a 3bet of 10%, ( Which is high) then he will call 34% of the times to your all in. WITH A 10% 3BET RANGE!
of the times he calls. 1.21% you will coinflip. The other 2.2% you will be dominated.
That is when run to real life simulation.
you do this 100 times, he has a 10% 3Bet range.
66 times he folds and you won a pot of 200.
200x66 = 13,200 chips
12 times you will be called by AK.
--- 6 times you will loose 1450 chips
6x1450 = -8700 chips
--- 6 times you will win 1350 chips
6x 1350 = 8100 chips
Now this is the fun part.
the rest hands (22) you will be dominated and you will have a 16% chance to win.
you will win approximately 4 and loose 18.
4x 1350 = 5200 chips

18x 1450 = -26,100
26K +9K = 35K
5K+8K+13K= 29K
So in this calc, every 100 hands you'll loose.

SO ASSUMING HE RERAISES 10% OF THE HANDS YOU STILL LOOSE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
Don't shove.
Correct my calculations if you find something wrong please.
And I'll post something about why i'd call rather than fold.

I dont really see why you cant do this by yourself but w/e.

88+, AQo+, AQs+ is 5.6% of all hands. We have 34.2% equity against this calling range.

0=f*200+(1-f)(1650*0.342-1450*0.658)

f=0.66

(x%-5.6%)/x%=0.66

x=16.47%

So with your estimations of villain's calling range (which are too tight imo because this is a range all people will call with, but you have to take into account some fishes and regs who call a little wider) our average villain at $60 has to have a 3-betting range of at least 16.47% for our shove to be EV+. Does he?? Someone who plays 60$ should check his data for this...

I could be a douche and ask you what pocket pair you will 3-bet call a shove w/ and then ask why not the pocket pair immediately below it?

Obv there isn't a significant difference between the 44 and 55, and in most cases if 55 is a call, so is 44. However, here are 2 common 4-bet shove ranges, (22-88), and (22-88, AT-AJ). Vs both ranges 55 is a call, but 44 is only a call in the second scenario, and barely a +Ev call. Not saying this is where the dividing line should be, it is prolly somewhere between 44-88 tho.

And yea, the ppl that are 3-betting 55 will likely have a wider 3-bet bluff range, but the opposite is also true, the ppl that don't 3-bet 55 will likely 3-bet bluff less.

lol if i sounded like a douche, i didnt mean to

I was just trying to say that I think his ranges are a bit skewed. I was on my phone so I couldnt really elaborate. But I think that the range he gave is waaaay too narrow towards monsters. I see ppl 3bet/call JTs/KQo type hands all the time. I think a more accurate range would show that we are flipping vs a much bigger range and very rarely dominated. Unfortunately its the first hand of the game so we cant give an accurate range, but in my experience when someone 3bets the very first hand he is usually tilted or a spewbox and is FOS. Villains range is much more weighted towards bluffs and not value.

edit: also good point about 44 being a call in certain instances, but if someone is that transparent I dont think 3betting low PPs would be very good.

edit #2: also, there are many players that try to establish gameflow early on and 3bet within the first few hands. There is one signed pro that I play every now and then that doesnt realize that I attack his first 3bet signnificantly wider than usual because I know he is FOS. Its things like that that makes me snap shove 55 here.

lol, no you didn't sound like a douche. I meant I would sound like a douche if I just proposed that one question about which pair you would 3-bet/call w/, and that is why I tried to explain my reasoning for 3-bet/calling 55 but not 44.

And we want him to fold JTs and KQ, right? And when you say flipping do you mean 50% equity vs his calling range because I think we will be closer to 40% than 50%.

yes we def want him to fold those hands, and I think most ppl do. Im just saying that there are a lot of ppl that dont fold those hands therefore I think the calling ranges that everyone is giving are wrong. Basically what I am trying to say is that I dont think its really possible for us to give villain a calling range because we dont know anything about him. I just generally think that when someone 3bets in the first few hands and I pick up a monster like 55, I have to get it in because I think that significantly more often than not villain will not have a big hand.

Krumb & RBJ - In the context of that exchange, your locations are very funny.

Just for fun, I did some math on an alternate to shove/fold ... flat and shove any non-A/K flop. I'm not advocating it, I was just curious what the expectation might look like. I assumed villain has a 20% 3b range (like 3.2% better PPs, 6% A/K+Broadway, 5.8% A/K-rag, 5% "air"). If villain never calls flop shove when behind, it's marginally +ev (~ +2.5bb). If he calls some of his better overs on low flops it obv becomes more +ev.

Again, not advocating this play and the expectation is obv heavily dependent upon how wide his 3b range is as well as it's composition. I was just curious if it was better than folding.

Playing the first hands differently accomplishes nothing, you are just doing a more predictable variant of the "strategy-where-you-look-at-your-wathclock-and-if-it-is-in-the-first-quarter-then-you-bluff".