If I'm Villain I am putting Ceres on the hand he has here or KQ/JJ because players don't protect checking ranges. This leads them to overbluff when they check-raise river after checking OTT and OTR in 3bet pots as OOP PFR.

I like his play at microstakes though since the overfolds are so massive.

Some amount of AA and AK for value, so not much. It just looks like a spaz. I wouldn't really expect to see QQ though.

I appreciated the discussion. That was dam interesting (no irony intended).

Ok, ty.

And we're assuming villain in this hand is an average reg, correct? Avg regs are over folding in this spot, based on the MDA data you have, correct?

This was a 10nl hand?

Ty.

Ok, so some value in your mind. Are you calling or folding then?

Just curious why you wouldn't expect to see any QQ? You wouldn't expect to see some 99-QQ?

One more question if you don't mind, I'm just trying to understand a couple of points here. Are you expecting to see any 57 at all? I assume GTO play doesn't 3-bet in this spot, or probably very few suited combos.

Yes and Yes.

I'm assuming it was a 10nl hand but will need to Ceres to confirm. The data is only aggregate but it is 50nl-1knl data so they should be folding even more than the data suggests at 10nl. I'm hoping TBJ can chime in with his own filtered data to confirm what the general data hints at.

This line is very uncommon and the formation isn't that common either so you need at least a few 100 million hand DB to get reasonable samples on the C-X-BF line. Now filter that for Ace high board and the sample size get's even lower.

It's also not clear how much showdown bias affect's folding %'s in these tight range spots so we need an overlay to what the theoretical Alpha is to be confident this play is positive EV.

I would hope that I call AJ and AQ every time in-game, because they block the only value hands that I think most people will have and make it a super easy bluffcatch.

I would expect to see a bit of everything worse than Kx, but I just wouldn't expect to see it often. idk why.

I wouldn't expect to see 57s enough for it to matter.

Hand was 5nlz, but I don't think it matters which microstake it was at.

I play a mix of 5-25nlz and the main reason I don't post stakes is they essentially all play the same. The only discernible differences I can see are 2nlz (all bets are off) and I'd say if I was playing a good 25nlz reg, because there are some decentish studying players there. But other than that it's usually almost exactly the same fish/reg types, literally the same players very often, thus including specific stake usually a distraction.

Read the first couple pages, really appreciate the thought of all you put into this forum.

I must be stuck back in 2017. Can someone explain what betting QQ otf accomplishes? We aren't getting 3 streets of value, we aren't denying much equity, and our hand won't improve very often.

Would much prefer to bet with a hand like TT-88 or 65s, for example.


Sent from my SM-A146U using Tapatalk

I mean it's mixed so not going to be a big deal either way. We do get called by worse though when we bet small. (draws and worse pairs)

Yep plus when V folds they torch a bunch of equity (two free cards to hit a set or 2p+) so I usually just relax and enjoy the moment when this cbet gets through with lower PPs.

I'm probably overcbetting but the tiny odds I run into someone who will know how to exploit that seem too remote

Ok, cool. Ty.

So is there much difference to you between AJ/AQ and Ax here though? I don't think we expect AQ to CRAI for value, correct? We're just looking at min bluff catchers.

Yes, 5-25NL, probably no real difference. I just wanted to make sure it was a microstake hand.

So I unlazzied (yes, this is a word) myself today, and took a look at GTO W for shits and giggles.

Flop is a fairly even mix of bet/check. Turn is 70% bet, but as you know, the sizings are going to be indifferent sizings that aren't super applicable 7.5bbs-12.5 bbs. And river is a call w/ non diamond QQ's, shoving 1.6% of the time (half the QQ's 3.2%).

I'm interested in what you've concluded from this hand if you don't mind sharing.

I think shove is fine with AQ, pretty hard to be beat since people will over 4-bet KK/AA/AK, usually stab double FD turn, and this sizing doesn't look super nutted. At 100bb easy jam imo

It's probably a little too ambitious to expect worse to call 130bb effective at these stakes. I do like it at higher stakes, but if we're saying players are over folding at these, don't think it makes much sense.

Yeah I like this play with AQ as well. I'll be experimenting with this line for value.

He's saying Ceres can jam here for value more often with AQ because Villain won't have AA/KK/AK as much as a solver.

Ya, I realized that and you didn't give me time to change my post. lol

I thought we agreed players at these stakes were over folding. Why would we then say we should shove 130bbs deep w/ AQ and expect them to call w/ worse? That doesn't really make much sense.

I think this would be somewhat more std at higher stakes though.

Yeah I'm talking about for 200nl+. I'd switch the line at the micros.

For me, if I'm studying an MDA concept I'm always studying how to use it vs the better players as a default.

I don't think there's much of a difference, but I think people would be more likely to jam JJ than QQ, so that would make AQ better to have.

idk what the point would be in jamming AQ. I think it should be obvously terrible when you can call and win the same amount of the time as jamming.

If you are against a good player jamming AQ will make more since they will call worse.

You and FD already admitted that you think this line is spazzy so you would bluff catch.

I'm sure you can see why I'd be pretty confuzzled then when you're agreeing w/ TBJ, that Ceres should jam AQ, when we just went through 3 pages in this thread justifying why Ceres' line is likely +EV because opponents over fold at these stakes.

As far as 200nl+ though, I'd be cautious in implementing super mergy VB's in today's game. They are nowhere near as profitable as they used to be, because people are way more balanced. That used to be how I made most of my money back in the day. But like we've all concluded, BTN in this specific hand won't have much / if at all AA/KK/AK, but you're going to see more balanced calling / 4-betting at higher stakes. AQ specifically here is probably ok at 100/200nl, and against some opponents at higher stakes.

AJ is the worst hand I'd be valuebetting and calling the jam with, so jamming AQ seems like a punt?

I see your point, but I don't think we really care when we're in bluff catching mode, since we don't know the exact card removal. We're more focused on the fact we don't think SB has AA/KK/AK, and they won't be value jamming w/ AQ/AJ since they can call more profitably w/ those hands. So in theory A2=AQ here.

I think you would be in the minority, especially vs very small cbet sizing. People don't like getting one street of value with top pair.

This runout is a bit unique since the K OTT messes up the value but if you change the King into a lower card are you still betting AJ+ for value? You would probably be more inclined to bet a hand like ATs/A5s now since not only do you unblock KK/QQ/JJ but it is more likely they call you as well.

I think population will be much more inclined to value bet Ax when it's clear that KK/QQ/JJ are all underpairs to top pair.