I can easily be wrong here and can easily be convinced.

What range of hands do you think an expert player should open in a average live 20-40 - 40-80 game and how much equity do you expect AQo to have vs that range.

There are some games where I fold ATo UTG but most games (40 and below) that's just leaving money on the table. Even against a super narrow range that doesn't include ATo, KJs, 77 we have just under 50% which can still be profitable given blind money and position.

3-betting when you're under 50 percent equity can be fine. The question is how much under 50 percent you should go. This can of course vary depending on the situation, but in general, I don't like going under 48 percent which many good players think is too tight.

Part of the reason for my thinking is that years ago, when I worked for the US Census Bureau, a lot of emphasis was placed on the idea that a good statistician will tend to error on the conservative side, and when I entered the world of gambling, which included poker, I always felt that this was excellent advice.

As for your specific hands, ATo, KJs, 77, even if you're correct, they can only be slightly profitable. If they weren't this discussion wouldn't exist. But there's more to think about than just the play of the particular hand. I have always felt, and have written about this in some detail in the past, that having a tight image in limit hold 'em was quite valuable. For instance, if I bet a weak hand on the turn with the intention of folding if raised and I'm not raised by someone who holds a pretty good hand (and who would normally raise with this hand) that has a lot of value since on occasion I'll draw out. So just focusing on a specific hand in a specific position is not the whole story, and I don't play any of these three hands that you listed UTG in a full ring game. To be specific, I play KJs and 77 in UTG+1, and ATo in UTG+2.

Let me add a little more to this. When people are right to 3-bet your UTG opens with AQo they're going to play automatically against you, especially in a live setting. When they're not correct to do this, they're more likely to make other errors against you latter in the hand, and the majority of these errors will be to your benefit.

This is partly why your notions can not be addressed in a straight forward manner. Even if you could conclusively show that playing 77 was slightly profitable UTG in a full ring game, it doesn't meant that it's the best play.

MM

Mason, What do you think is a solid opening range UTG?

Best Wishes.

OTR

and what equity does AQo have against that?

Hi OnTheRail15:

In our book Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games by Grudzien and Herzog they give as the UTG opening range in a full nine handed ring game 88+, ATs+, AQo+, KQs. And according to Equilab AQo comes in at 41.10 percent against this range.

Best wishes,
Mason

I guess it's obvious why we disagree. If you remove the most commonly played UTG hands that we dominate AJo and KQo then AQ will be in bad shape.

I don't think folding AJo is correct in any live mkdstakes game.

I do play AJo in UTG+1 (but not UTG).

Mason

I play all suited broadway cards, 66, KQo, AJo. Sometimes even KJo, 9Ts or 55 if I'm feeling lucky.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

I think it's pretty clear that CL is too loose but almost as clear that MM is too tight UTG.

One more note: while having a tight image might be beneficial in LHE on a per hand basis, it is terrible from an overall meta game standpoint. The action players, at least where I play, have no interest in playing with a bunch of nits. This is something that me and Jon_locke have realized a long time ago and has resulted in many unbelievably +EV spots for the two of us.

This post is extremely wrong from your meta game view. We're only talking about a very small number of hands from early position, and I doubt that your action players would even be aware of this difference. In addition, we're not talking at all about what hands to play in later position and what hands to 3-bet as well as what hands to call from the big blind (where I think that many players are too tight). In addition, I never chop the blinds which is something that your beloved nits will always do.

MM

i don't mind these people and don't think fish do either. fish love to chop where i play. i think, it's the just nitty tags that piss off fish (and me for some reason).

@mason: do you prefer he or stud theses days? what are you playing cash-wise at the series? i read stud for advanced players couple years ago and forgot everything. gonna have to read it again. people say it's the best book for stud

Hi steveistheman:

There's virtually no stud where I play so the past several years I've only played limit hold 'em with just a couple of exceptions. And when I play it's usually later at night at The Bellagio.

Best wishes,
Mason

I don't own a stock trader book but if I recall he posted his large database of bands in it, curios how Ajo Utg did (in easier games at the time) if anyone has it. Not trolling whatever it is (have no idea)

Doesn't look like I have my copy anymore but his ranges were viewed on the tight side.

The tables in the stock trader book only gives results for up to three positions to the right of the button, and UTG would be 6 positions to the right. So UTG in a full ring game is not given.

In The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall he does not give opening ranges with one exception but states in a footnote:

However, the one exception is on page 47. He gives a suggested range for an UTG player at a full table. The range is 66+, ATS+, AJo+, KJs+, QJs, JTs.

Mason

It sounds like I should probably drop KQo, KTs and QTs. I was already considering dropping KQo from my utg range.

Do you think you are viewed as nitty, Mason?

Mason can you recall the action from any hands where you raised UTG and were 3-bet by AQ off suit, then proceeded to take some young internet punks to school?

Well the of debate makes the oOP more
Interesting now.

(1) I open UTG, Mason 3 bets and you have JJ.....
(2) Mason opens UTG. I 3 bet and you have JJ.....

The 1999 advise may be correct here as they appear to be easy folds

Hi Mason,

I've always felt that A9 was more of a group 7 hand than a group 8 hand and feel I have been misplaying it for years because of hand ranking chart. Has your opinion on A9 changed over the years?

Thanks,

Brad

Hi bipolarbearclaw:

Not really. But one thing I do is when reraised (after I raise first in) and there is only two of us in the pot, I always call and never make it four bets.To see why this is good strategy I recommend The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall.

Best wishes,
Mason

No. You're completely wrong on No. 1. My three betting range should have a lot to do with what I think your opening range would be and to a lessor degree how well I think you play from the flop on, and based on this thread, my three betting range, given what you have stated about your opening range, should be wide enough for the pair of jacks to play.

As for No. 2, I have no idea as to how you would adjust your three betting range against me (and most players don't adjust at all). But if you do it correctly and I open UTG, a player with two jacks should probably fold.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Brad:

In today's more aggressive games, you should treat it as a better hand than Group 8 and probably as high as Group 6 in some spots. I'm going by memory, but I do think there is discussion of this effect in HPFAP though A9o is not used as an example.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Rail:

No one views me this way, and that's because I raise limpers more than most players, I three bet more than most players, I defend out of the big blind more than most players, and I never chop the blinds.

Best wishes,
Mason