There’s no need for random opinions like this in poker these days run a sim
First run the sim and see how much the call is worth at equilibrium then node lock with some assumptions about oop strategy. I’m pretty sure a6 isn’t folding though until maybe the river

that comment wasn't a response to you..
2 diff hands being discussed

Ran the sim re: A6cc.
Flop is a call, not a raise. Shove range is pretty std, some Qx and f draws. Interestingly, 77 shoves ~33% of the time, makes sense for protection.

You're correct A6 is calling some turns:
calling offsuit broadways, folding offsuit 4, 7, 8, 9, calling offsuit 2, 3.
folding heart turns.
I gave OOP a shove size only OTT.

You prob nitted up the BB range and didn't use proper equilibrium 3b ranges w enough of a bluffing freq in there for it to always call A6c.

Prob just due to your playstyle though.

I'd think it would mix in a fair bit of raising vs. said range, but maybe I'm wrong, didn't run a sim for it.

lol you're a trip bro

What do we think of the A6 spot, resident expert @EggsMcBluffin?

I only have GTO+ and just use it for cashgames, don't know how to run MTT sims on it yo, I assume it's the s&g tab but never used it and not sure how accurate that is.

Why use a shove size only OTT for the sim, should have at least a half pot and a shove. Flop should likely have 1/3, 1/2, 3/4 like most normal people would.

Would not think a sim would choose flatting more than a raise OTF, and think the jam is much more likely than a small raise if we go with it, but maybe I'm totally off with dat innate GTO feel guize.

Not an expert.

A6s not necessarily a flat pre there, could just be a fold and prob is just a fold against most humans but in theory it's fine to continue to the flop just likely very slightly better breakeven at best if you have a massive skill edge over BB. And then again 3.5x may be a tad small 33bb eff but prob doesn't outweigh assumed too tight & too linear 3b range construction.

Flop it's really tough to say because people prob aren't achieving as wide or polar a range as they should (in many cases it's prob not even close) which also goes further towards pre prob just being a fold unless you have a read BB is competent.

But think raise all-in is gonna be viable most of the time. There's merit to merging here to get him off stuff like 77-TT and blocking AA,AQ. It's something like a semibluff which is a common phenomenon this shallow with pairs that would seemingly be subject to distribution effects but actually aren't (at least not subject to harsh enough effects to parry those pairs from being shipped).

But at the same time there's clear incentive to flat and it's clearly never a fold OTF.


I mean I've been rethinking a lot recently how to contextualize the stuff I glean from solver study (which is how I spend 95% of my study time). A lot of it is due to the acceptance that humans just aren't capable of matching anywhere that complexity especially under time pressure and the pressures of competition.

I just had a conversation with a buddy of mine who plays for a living and who's opinions I trust immensely it was actually about that 66 hand you posted. His assertions were that it's pretty common to see people even "pros" for whom using smth like larger than 2/3 pot or w/e is pretty rare, that large sizings in general are pretty foreign for most people including regs and "pros" especially people who aren't studying properly.

I wasn't totally surprised, but I was a bit surprised. So I explicitly asked him

And his response was a pretty blunt "Yes. MTTs are soft lol"

All this to say it's really tough to range people in these spots--does your average human, even someone playing an online $1k (which apparently doesn't really mean that much in terms of absolutely levels of skill--maybe it means a lot in terms of RELATIVE skill to smaller-stakes players but if even lots of $1k pros can't distinguish between when to bet small and large in lots of spots then...) find enough 3bs with Q9o,A7o,K6o et al? Do they ever ship TT?

It's simply not true he needs to be overbluffing a lot for 66 to be a call there.

AJ,AQ,A5,A4,As8s,As9s all in IP's range and OOP has 9x,8x,7x,6x,A5s,A4s he can bluff which induces IP to fold slivers of his underpairs, not chunks--think how exploitable IP is if he always folds 66- and how easy it would be for OOP to choose his bluffs based on blockers if that happens. It's not like 44-77/88 have significantly different levels of SDV at this point. All of these are still solidly middle of range for IP.

There is no universe where IP can fold 50-75% of his range vs that sizing and be unexploitable.

You won't get too much pushback if you wanna argue he's underbluffing. Most people are presumed to be underbluffing in most spots as a default and I get that people (completely irrationally mind you, if you read these responses ITT) kinda hate taking the small sizing as a bluff and get annoyed when they get called in lieu of using a larger sizing.

It's actually quite a silly mindset since it gets an insane amount of folds for the price--again, just read the responses ITT--but sure, granted there are many people who are thinking that as they deploy the small sizing.

I'd bet you gave IP a very, very tight flatting range if 66 are that far down by the river for it to not even be close.

First of all why do you post so many paragraphs without posting a sim? If it's obviously close then post a sim demonstrating that.

Secondly, if we have A8s/A9s in our range pre then we also have some ATs and JTs and possibly even KTs/QTs as well. Which means that by the river we have enough Tx in addition to 88/99 that we don't need to consider calling 66.

Third, even if a combo is a GTO call at some frequency that doesn't mean you should call in practice. Yeah you're right, 44-99 are all the same practically speaking here. That doesn't mean you should call each combo 17.5% of the time like Pio suggests, you can simplify your strategy to just call at the correct overall defense frequency (meaning always call 88-99 and fold 44-77 or whatever it may be). It's much more important to get frequencies approximately correct than to perform exactly what Pio spits out, which is impossible anyway without RTA.

You an run it yourself if you like.



Not true that we have so much Tx, as I stated these 44-77 are still more or less median of range.

Did YOU run a sim?



Agree, which is why I give one such scenario in Post #17 and you can think of a bunch more yourself. And the equilibrium frequencies are way way way way higher than 17.5% btw.

No one here is saying "copy the solver".

If you wanna assume OOP uses that 50% pot sizing otf and just that sizing which is not great for him but reasonable for a human with only ~20 seconds to act then here ya go:

21% open freq which is tighter than equilibrium:



No incentive for IP to raise anything, can't do it this capped with OOP merged without leaving the flatting range vulnerable plus TT have crappy blockers:



Think its reasonable to model him being merged with that turn sizing but in any case turn never a pure fold and it's not even close:




Not sure why people are so quick to dismiss OOP bluffing as wide as he should; after all, each and every one of you are egregiously overfolding. Like really egregious. Competent OOP is owning you with a capital "O" if you just bend over and always fold 66 here.


River as I said in Post 16 looks like good sizing from OOP. You can see how assumptions about OOP's capabilities on earlier streets filters down to what his river range is. In either case there's clear incentive to go small like he did with a pretty obvious subset of combos



River not even close to a pure fold

and no, 1/4 pot vs 1/3 pot on river doesnt change anything but not posting new screenshots.

First of all...thank you for the homoerotic reference, they're def underused in the forums...prob just a Freudian slip.

Secondly, we're not "overfolding," we are simply not calling at the frequency (which is) suggested by GTO. This paring of our calling range is an adjustment to a deficiency (not having enuf bruffs) in the strategy used by the vast majority of the population.

Once we begin to observe SDs where villains have Q9ss, we can add some combos accordingly.

What would really be an egregious error, would be to preemptively STAND TALL and say, "look Ma...I'm NOT overfolding," and hero with 66.

That's literally what overfolding is and that's not just semantics. Its always relative to equilibrium. That's the DEFINITION of overfolding.

You may be purposefully, EXPLOITATIVELY overfolding but you are overfolding let's be very very clear here.

And we're talking about never catching with a massive segment of our range that in theory ought to be catching a ton. Serious OVERFOLDING.

And I think just conceding like 90% of your range because of some lazy, handwavey "HE'S UNDERBLUFFING!!!!" justification is more of an error but I don't think anyone is gonna agree with that so I won't try to achieve that

I mean isn't V supposed to be good if this is his job, his livelihood? Good as in, not underbluffing (and again I'll say if anything him having too much sizing-shifted value like JJ-QQ, not necessarily enough bluffs, is a more reasonable way to justify overfolding) as much as your referenced vast majority of the population?

And if he is indeed good, don't you think he knows how much of your range isn't making it to showdown vs this line? Because after all, "LOOK MA, HE'S UNDERBLUFFING" as you give him a 30bb pot 90% of the time because he bet 10bb.

Why do you think it's so unreasonable to think a pro (meaning either he wins or he starves--so he better play to win) is capable of exploiting that by bluffing MORE?

But would I have to be bent forward at the waist to fold a PP here...or could I also be in an upright, sitting or supine position as well?

IDK youre the one who automatically associates "bend over" with gay buttsecks

He could be bending over backwards, ya know...or just stretching his hammies.

Are you fully clothed as you overfold? That's a very important detail.

Always down to see digital evidence that suggests pop isn't underbuffing...so feel free to post HHs from ur PT4 that demonstrate this*...until then relax, watch a video, or do w/e you need to do to relieve yourself...(btwn the bending over ref and all the exclamation points) you seem to be getting a little worked up here.

*I'd be shocked if you could come up with 3-4

I don't have a massive sample and I don't really grind $1ks so my data aren't too meaningful here.

Only have 7 hands on similar flop texture where there was a triple barrel and I found 2 bluffs, one be me one by someone else (though both were in 3b pots, and not the same river sizings--both very fair limitations to point out)

You down to do some DB work? This is the filter I used:



Can also filter for just single raised pots and can get really fancy and filter for a subset of V's whom you know to be pros or consider good enough to be pros. If you have stake (I don't) then filter for that too. Can also filter for the sizings but that might not give enough data.


And if you really wanna get technical then 20% bluffing freq is still inside a 95% confidence interval using a sample with 0/5 bluffs. That doesn't mean much, but it is true.

Why do we keep referring to "the pop" as if it's an amorphous entity?

V is described as a "known pro" (OP doesn't even play MTTs and he knows who this V is--he's prob pretty successful and skilled for that to be the case) and this is a $1k event, these are both conditions specifying a very particular subset of the pop, not the pop itself.

LMFAO 21% opening range for BTN-5? 97s? KTo? Not even badregs are opening those.

Anyway, your sim more or less proves what I was saying...that we call Tx+88/99. The only reason we are calling so many 88-99 is because we are bluff raising a bunch of JTs instead of calling it.

And no, it’s not overfolding if your overall defense frequency is correct. Period.

Add to that erc007’s point about making marginal GTO calls when, and only when, ample evidence exists that one’s opponent is also playing GTO.

Its 8-handed, he's effectively MP and yes they are opening those dig into your database and find out yourself



4,367 opens in over 20k opps. Now that's statistically significant.

Where's your data?

Or better yet, run a sim and see that those are opens at equilibrium. I've done that, have you?


JT is a value raise there, check out OOP's value range for 1/3 pot and see for yourself. It's not a bluff at all. You block his milked TT which in turn block IP's Tx and you beat 99 and the weakest Tx (yes, all of which can and should and are being opened by competent people) each of which are still strong enough to be valued for precisely that 1/3 sizing.


JT has >80% equity there.


Were calling 99 because it's on a whole tier higher than 88- since it chops w/ OOP's 99


Your earlier observation about 44-99 being similar isnt right--it's 44-88 that are similar. Being precise matters. There's a difference between the interval (44,99) and (44,99]

Your observation about 88 is silly the defense freq for 88 is identical to that of 66.

Nope. Terminology matters.

And the whole point of this exercise is showing your defense frequency is NOT correct if you're never willing to even entertain the idea of catching 66 there, unless you have some serious justification for that. "I think he's underbluffing" may even be totally correct--but it's not hard justification.

If you honestly think a $1k online mtt pro isn't balanced - with a bluffing range neatly constructed of hands that block and unblock - then fine. Again, you may very well be right here--but you haven't justified anything.

And the null hypothesis has to be this ostensibly good player finds bluffs here and appropriately sizes his value with the appropriate combos such that it's not correct to deviate as far from equilibrium as your "its not even close" assertion makes it out to be. You wanna fold still, fine-again, you may very well be right to do that. But it sure as hell isn't as trivial as you make it out to be and do be aware that the best players know you think that and are exploiting you accordingly.

Here's a tighter open range.





Still not a pure turn fold






River





Still not a pure fold

Exactly. Overfolding means folding too much. If you're not folding too much, then you're not folding too much. Meeting MDF does not require GTO.


Correct defense frequency for individual combos is not what's relevant. It's overall defense frequency. I already explained that. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself?

Yeah so in that new, more accurate sim you posted, we no longer raise JT/QT on river and 66 is clearly a fold