Quote:
Originally Posted by wazz
Definitely feasible that in solver world this is a fold. But in the real world, folding this is leaving money on the table that the solver couldn't make back and we certainly can't either. If the rake is so high that this is in practice a fold, I find it difficult to imagine we're +ev and maybe we should play somewhere where the rake is lower. If the rake is high and we tolerate that because our opponents are really bad.... well, then, we can call this because we're going to make back what we lose in our hot and cold preflop equity call by having our opponents put their money in drawing thin too frequently..
High rake is the rake structure of most any online site 1/2 and below, so I think this game, and most games that most of us are playing, are considered high rake in the world of solvers.
This distinction of solver world vs real world is a slippery slope as I think in general solver agrees with the heuristics most PLO players have been using for a long time preflop. BTW, I ran this hand through a solver and this hand is a pure fold UTG as first to act, pure raise UTG+1 (this hand), but when it comes back to us after this action it's a call with QJcc98, but a fold with Q9ccJ8 (96% fold 4% call) or Q8ccJ9 (100%) and it's actually not that close as ev of calling is -0.5bb relative to folding. This is real actionable data, and I think it is a lot more trustworthy than feel-based play. It's relatively easy to learn these preflop scenarios offline and yes, you can adapt them slightly depending on situation, but I firmly believe these should be the basline range. So, I think cardiff is totally right and this is a fold, but whatever, we are so much better we can make up the 0.5 bb post flop. If this hand was played live then fine, I buy it, but online I think it should be a fold, but it's a mistake that many of us will make (myself included), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfbook
Preflop. So to start off simple and pure, let’s forget about the cold callers for a moment. You open raised in MP and the SB 3-bet. Without any cold callers the SB might 3-bet here 5-6%. AAxx (not including AAAx) is 2.5% of all poker hands so the SB’s 3-betting range is about half AAxx. And I would say the other half of the SB’s range that isn’t AAxx is still Axxx half the time. So about 75% of SB’s range has at least one Ace in it. Okay, now onto the not so simple and pure by including the cold callers. Some people squeeze with a wider range, some people squeeze with a tighter range, especially against multiple cold callers. But if you just want to keep it simple, say the SB 3-bets about 5% here and that 2.5% of all hands are AAxx therefore the SB has AAxx half the time and Axxx 75% of the time.
I want to be a bit pedantic here, because I went through the hassle of creating a fairly realistic 3b! range from the SB in this situation. In my range he has AA 45% and he has A!AA 22%. Of course, after the flop comes down these numbers do change a lot. Now he only has AA 29% of the time and an A!AA 24%.
For anyone who cares: SB 3B range I used (5.72%): AA, RROO$ds, 4567+$ds, 4678+$ds, 4578+$ds, 4568+$ds, KK[6+][6+]$ds!AA!KKK,$R$R$R$R
xxyy,xxyw), $R$R$R
xxyy)
Post flop this is trvial stack off IMO. I'm not at all surprised by the PSB, but I do think from a hand reading perspective it drastically reduces his AA hand rank to something close to 0%. But even if it doesn't I don't think it matters. I think villain would have to be a super imbalanced nit to ever consider anything except getting it in here.