Back when I was first starting off playing holdem, I'd often cold-call a raise with hands like AJo, AQo, KQo, etc. I have since learned that this a pretty bad thing to do. However this got me to thinking, is there ever a situation where being the first cold-caller of an open-raise is correct, outside of the blinds?

loose-passive table, not-totally-nitty UTG raises, you're UTG+1 with KQs/AJs?

If I'm in a bad situation where the tight players are to my right and the loose players to my left, I will occasionally flat call a really tight player's open from EP with my entire range (like TT+, AQ+) and hope to invite all the loose players in rather than 3-bet to isolate a tight range.

One of the poker authors said "raise a loose player with tight players to act, don't raise a tight player with loose players to act."

table dynamics are numero-uno in this situation every single time

You have to have a hand that wants a multi-way pot and you must have several players left to act, a few of whom will call two bets cold rather liberally. It is virtually never correct in tougher games. Even with hands like KQs and AJs three betting is usually best if nobody else has yet called the raise.

The Ciaffone book is the only one I've seen that ever endorsed cold calling to any large degree. Perhaps this is where lots of live TAGs got it from. It is probably the biggest obvious pre-flop error that you see out of live pros in mid-limit games.

I agree. And I'd rather have a small PP and a lot of droolers behind me who are virtually guaranteed to call as well.

showdown bound mega LAG opens the CO, blinds are loose and bad, you're on the BTN with 98s. Even with tight blinds I'd probably call in that spot as well, although it becomes closer to a 3bet.

There are plenty of situations where coldcalling is correct... it usually involves loose players to your left with hands that need to flop well or want multiway action. In tough games it's usually not a great idea because your hand will be pretty transparent to a decent hand reader, and you're also less likely to get a bunch of coldcallers behind you. In games with lots of bad players who can't read hands then who cares... you just want to make sure that the value you gain from (probably) forcing out the blinds/equity against players already in the pot doesn't far outweigh the value of encouraging a more multiway pot.

I don't really know why you'd ever want to coldcall with a hand like AJo, creating dead money and getting it short handed is almost always going to be better with the hands listed. Coldcalling AJs or KQs can certainly be good in a lot of situations.

I would do it if it encourages other cold callers behind me and there's been a lot of pots multiway for two bets...hands like A suited and probably all pairs from 10 ,10 down. It's usually a 3 bet or a fold but certain game conditions would probably warrant what you're talking about ....... however the hands you mentioned are terrible for that type of game.

I don't get the TT, 99 cold calls with loose players behind. Even 88 should be a 3-bet (or fold if opener is tight EP).

i think coldcalling aces, kings, and maybe aks here with loose guys behind can be okay

if everyone is going to fold when you threebet but 7 people are going to call if you dont then i think 3 betting AA is pretty bad

I continue to be amazed -- although perhaps I shouldn't -- by the number of people who coldcall 3 in my local game.

I've been analyzing situations where I used to 3-bet all the time and in retrospect I'm seeing that there's plenty of opportunity for me to cold-call instead and build giant pots preflop with all the ******s behind who'll call 2 but not 3. (this isn't uncommon) If the original raiser is a show-down bound donk, why not just call 2 and see if you get it 4 or 5 ways with AKo instead of coinflipping against 44? Then if you hit an ace, you probably win a big pot instead of maybe winning 4sb or whatever.

Ya I've been coldcalling a bit more often lately as I used to almost never cold call. Usually its in the situations described, tight player opens who you've played a lot with and has your range down well. You have big hand say AA and there are some bad players who are likely to CC 2 but not 3. CC here, the good player will probably read your hand well but you could win a monster pot from the donks. I also CC when I think I can get a strong speculative hand into a big multiway pot. All the advice listed above is very good imo.

I think this is very bad with AKo.

+1

Why? I like getting 3:1 for 2 bets better than I like between 1:1 and 2:1 for 3 bets. If I know everyone will call behind for 3 bets just as easily as they will call for 2 bets, then of course I 3-bet. Or, if there's a raiser and a coldcaller, then I 3-bet. But, if someone opens with no limpers and I'm next to act, a 3-bet shuts everyone else out (usually, except hands that have me crushed) and keeps the pot relatively small.

I'll concede this, though, 90% of my opponents are showdown bound with any sort of hand and I generally have to think about showing down the best hand rather than some of the elaborate b/3b strategies with ace-high air to represent hands.

Your entire argument is accurate - if our only goal was to build a big pot. Preflop with AK one of our goals is to maximize our chances of winning the hand. 3-betting does both by getting value from a range that we are likely ahead of, and cutting the number of players in the pot.

You WANT to play AKo against 1-3 opponents who are paying too much for weaker starting hands, not 4-5 opponents getting a good price who will also likely draw with good odds on the flop. This is super basic.

You WANT to play AKo to maximize equity, not win pots. Which is better, playing AKo versus a tight early raiser and one optimist for three bets or versus that same tight early raiser and four optimists for two bets each? Time for some stoving.

(My own sense is that raising is better than cold-calling, among other reasons, because cold-calling by its nature puts one out of position with respect to the optimists who trail in.)

Getting more money in the pot without getting more hands in the pot that have equity shares is what makes the most with this hand. If you can get an extra bet in from the original raiser, and get the blinds to fold, it is better than getting bets in from a couple of other players and then having to compete with them for the pot (unless those players want to put in three bets to compete).

Dead blind money is a huge overlay and all but the absolute strongest hands would prefer to have dead blind money in the pot rather than have more players fighting for the pot. The exceptions are drawing hands that when made can beat a huge field and have almost the same probability of winning against one player as four or five. Those hands want more players, of course.

I personally think that AA is the only hand strong enough to have the luxury of flatting or 3 betting (maybe AKs). For all other hands one choice is usually clearly far superior.

This is going to be an overly simplistic example, but I think it will illustrate. Say a guy opens with a 15% ranges and it is folded to you 3 off the button. This is a fairly loose game and if you do not three bet the remaining 3 players would call with about 1/3 of all hands (thus one of them will call on average). Then the loose blinds will call with random hands now that the pot is so large.

You have a five player pot.

Player 1=15% range
You= AKo
Cold caller = 33% range
SB= 80% range
BB=90% range

The blinds fold only the very worst hands.

You have 25.5% equity in a 10 bet pot. You make a profit of .55 small bets in equity.

Now, say you three bet, it folds to the original raiser who calls. You now have 61.3% equity in a 7.5 bet pot. This is 4.6 bets, less your 3 bet investment, a profit of 1.5 small bets in equity.

Yes, you had an equity edge against the other poor hands that came in. But this is dwarfed by the prospect of getting dead blind money in that you will own the major equity portion of.

There is no comparison, and this was with the assumption that we would get very weak ranges to put in money.

Like I say, I fall strongly into the 3! camp. But Hyperrrprank's reasoning was faulty. We don't want to maximize our chances of winning the pot; we want to maximize our EV.

Sorry, I should have addressed this specific situation. I used a 15% raiser and not a tight raiser. Let's look at the situation again against a tight opener with a range: 99+, AQ, AJs, KQs

Our equity against this guy is 50.39%. I think we want to fight it out with him for the dead blind money. We three bet, blinds fold, we have 50.39% equity in the 7.5 bet pot=3.78 bets. We are profitable to the tune of .78 small bets in equity.

Let's look at the situation with four "optimists". We'll call the optimists 25% ranges, and say that the blinds will be optimistic in the big pot that the can enter cheaply. They will each play 90% ranges. So we have to cold callers with 25% ranges and the two blinds with 90% ranges, ourselves with AKo, and the tight early raiser.


Early raiser=24%
AKo=17%
cold caller 1=15.5%
cold caller 2=15.5%
sb=14%
bb= 14%

We have 17% equity in a 12 bet pot... just about break even. AKo is simply not a very strong multi-way hand.

When we three bet and play heads up we are essentially coin tossing with another strong hand with dead blind money as an overlay... a fantastic prospect.

Just for the sake of curiosity, I did the same exercise with us holding AA against all the same players and ranges. In the 12 bet pot we now have 47% equity. This is a profit of 5.64 sb of equity for cold calling and letting the weak hands in.

When we isolate we have 83.8% equity in the 7.5 bet pot, a profit of 3.28 small bets. So, yes, AA is strong enough to allow weak hands in without suffering.

For other hands:

KK, 69% equity when isolating for a profit of 2.175 sb, vs 36.3% equity in the 12 bet pot, for a profit of 2.356. So KK comes out marginally better letting the fish in, but at the cost of much higher variance.

QQ, 59% equity when isolating for profit of 1.425 small bets, 28% in 12 bet pot for a profit of 1.36 small bets. QQ prefers to isolate.

So only AA and KK have a strong enough equity edge vs typical loose callers to prefer them in over the alternative of playing heads up with dead blind money. QQ does better by isolating, and with AK it is no contest.

When I read Emerson's earlier post he hadn't yet added the "overly simplistic example."

Good work, in any event.

I ran the comparison for all hands I could think of that should not be folded to a raise in a loose game where several people are likely to call, but where a 3 bet would be likely to isolate the raiser.

Pairs 99-QQ, AK and AQ all do better 3 betting. AJo folds, ATs folds.

Pairs 22-88, AA, KK, AJs, KQs, KJs, all do better cold calling. (KK is close, I'm raising despite the few pennies extra you get via calling). 22 would not be a bad fold as it has a positive expectaion of only 4 1/1000ths of a small bet, essentially zero ev. I know Miller says to call with it here but it looks like just a variance adder.

This is with the same set of assumptions as the post above. We get two more cold callers with 25% ranges and both blinds call with 80% ranges, 6 way pot, 12 small bets. PFR range is 99+, AJo, ATs, KQs.

Playable suited connectors do better calling than 3 betting.