I haven't got any reads on villain but i'm very short obviously, I would go ATo A9s 66 KQs. Am i right?

I'd call *66+,ATs+,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,AJo+,KQo*

Eh, this is a weird range.

I call: 7.1%, 66+ AJs+ AQo+ KQs

No way I'm calling T9s here.

We only need to have 30% equity to call. Hand 0 is opener, Hand 1 is caller.

Ranges:
Hand 0 16.7% [22+ A8s+ A5s ATo+ K9s+ KJo+ Q9s+ J9s+ T9s 98s ]
Hand 1 6.3% [77+ AJs+ AQo+ ]
Hand 2 11.3% [66+ ATs+ AJo+ KTs+ KQo QTs+ J9s+ T9s ]

Equity:
Hand 0 27.812%
Hand 1 40.387%
Hand 2 31.801%

Ermm, there are still people behind us, so you don't close action. Furthermore there are enough situations where you have odds, and you don't call it. Still you got 6bb and you got time.

Only having 6bb's is the reason I'd call that range. Folding is almost certainly worse than calling.

So you always overcall with that range with antes with 6bb? So, T9s you call here??? If so, you are the first one I know that does it to be honest. I just don't understand why exactly. With 6/5 bb you still got fold equity. Can you please give some arguments why folding is worse than calling here with T9s?

I'm calling here, but my range isn't that wide here. 66+, AJs+, KQs+, KQo. Possibly worse if I know players can be shoving a huge range, there is an argument for the T9s call because we will have good equity but i don't think it's optimal. Maybe i play too tight but I would fold T9s most of the time here.

The FE that we have isn't actually worth much because of the actual equity of our shoving range when called - and we will get called quite a lot.

Calling and folding are probably pretty much even cEV wise, but $EV wise I'd expect calling to be better.

Sorry I just disagree with what you say. I almost start to doubt if we discuss the same hand. Anyhows I call this: 7.1%, 66+ AJs+ AQo+ KQs and probably KQo too. That's it.

I just wonder if this is a winning play longterm. Also $EV? It's bb300...

call, not overly excited about it though.

So you don't think having a pretty decent stack now will increase our $EV? As well as indirectly increasing it due to future cEV?

Also, you make it sound as if I was just being stubborn... I never claimed to be correct; merely gave my suggestion and the reasoning.

Microdegen... you're supposed to calculate your hand equity individually and not group'em together; I can add **** hands into that range and get 30%.

You guys are way too wide and with so many people left to act.

99+ AK This is using Microdegen's ranges on both villains.

I'm not attacking you in any way or something. Just want to figure out if we actually can call hands like T9s profitable long term in situations like this. I myself call fairly tight vs 2 ranges even with 6 bb.

Btw, I got that range using Nash calculator. Both nash ranges are pretty wide, most of overshoving guys are too tight, which even tightens our range.

Just curious who overcall hands like T9s/JTs on a regular basis in situations like this.

Lol what? No. If you're trying to say that hands like JJ+ boost our equity by a lot, then you're wrong because it takes into account how often we'll actually be dealt them.

The reason you can add **** hands and get to 30% is because you don't put the optimal range in - e.g. you add **** hands but your calling range is 8%, whereas if you work out the optimal range you can call 11%.


Edit:
I didn't until more recently. My calling ranges are one of the things I need to work on most and I used to always fold in spots like this but then find myself ridiculously short or making -EV shoves (because less -EV than folding) - so it seemed that calling in spots like this may be better.

Your hand is known but not theirs. 66 as well as the majority of the hands you input do not have 30% equity. You are not holding 50 hands. You are holding one.

The reason you are always short is because you're not shoving enough.

It doesn't matter if individual hands don't have 30% equity - we want a range that has 30%. But when we make that range, we put the hands that have the highest equity in (66 has more equity than other hands that I checked).
"You are not holding 50 hands. You are holding one." - How obtuse do you want to be? You could use that same argument for folding hands that are pretty standard shoves/calls.

"The reason you are always short is because you're not shoving enough."

I said I'd find myself short sometimes after folding spots like this that I thought were bad - your statement is ridiculous; are you saying we should fold the range I suggested calling with here, then proceed to make a -EV shove instead?
Do you have any idea how dumb that statement is overall?

To each his own. Why are you so upset? I just want you to see things in a different light.

Seems like I upset the man. I apologise for my actions.

Microdegen... what you are doing is you are covering your hand face down with the hopes you have the range you assigned which is not the case. You have looked at the hand and it's XX and XX only.

At what point in my posts do I seem upset? Please don't be one of those people that just says that with no basis. Also, I are not upset.

What I said I would do here has been questioned and it's led to some discussion (which is obv good), but then you say "The reason you are always short is because you're not shoving enough." which to me just seems aggressive - maybe I was wrong and you didn't mean it the way I thought you did.

You want your specific cards to have a particular percentage against someone's range, not have your range have a particular percentage versus his range, otherwise the following statement is true.

"I range my opponent on JJ+. I need 37% to call. It is correct to call with QQ+, AK and 27o as that range has 37%."

This is obviously wrong. You need to look at the cards in front of you.

+1

Well technically that statement is true, it's just extremely sub-optimal to call with 72o as opposed to something like QQ+,ATs+,KTs+,QTs+,AKo.

It depends how much you value future cEV (from the times we ~triple up); if you value it enough then you will use as many hands as possible in a calling range - even if a few of those hands individually are -EV.

Edit: Just to clarify, I wouldn't work out a calling range the same way as I have done here if we had 9/10+bbs. It's only because we only have 6bbs that I think we should try and be as wide as we can with calling (although maybe 66 & T9s are indeed a bit too wide).

Why are you comparing our range versus other ranges?
Shouldn't it be hand vs ranges?

Hand 0: 29.667% { 22+, A8s+, A5s, K9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, ATo+, KJo+ }
Hand 1: 44.566% { 77+, AJs+, AQo+ }
Hand 2: 25.767% { T9s }

If I need 30% to be break even, I want at least 32% because other players behind and because it doesn't help us much to make breakeven calls.

Ohh, and versus ranges above 66 looks like ez fold.