Theoretical question with regards to dealing with 4-bets:

Assuming 100x deep stacks and facing a competent reg with reasonable ft3b, defending to 3b and a reasonable 4b range, I'm wondering what to do facing a 4-bet to say 22-26x after I've 3-bet their 2/2.5x open to 8/9x with hands like KQo, ATs etc., because I feel like getting in 100x with these hands is generally going to be pretty spewy vs their calling ranges with them not folding enough to the shove to do it as a bluff, but find folding to be a bit weak in these types of spots, so is it theoretically correct to be calling in these spots with these hands? (Balanced by the times I flat monsters here naturally) [Also if we replace KQo with say 98s is it/can it still be correct to flat these hands here?]

Thanks in advance.

depending on what games you're playing in, you must figure out which hands you can profitably 5bet jam. usually this range will contain TT+ and AK as "value" hands. flat hands like AQ, AJ etc and suited connectors n stuff, fold the rest.

I fold both at and kq to a 4bet unless villains a maniac, This is why i generally prefer flatting ats etc. vs. a decent opponent opening 3x.

Im never calling suited connectors vs. a 4bet 100bb deep.

exec, it goes 2x/7x/18x and you're folding 89s?

I don't think it's lolbad or anything in terms of immediate EV to fold 76s <100bb deep but wouldn't you start running into serious board coverage problems?

Even weak NL50 regs would quickly pick up on the fact that 75% of your range is missed overs on 358ssx type boards.

Yeah, I feel that if I start calling 4-bets I probably have to get into flatting suited connectors and stuff like that, thanks for the help in this thread, I think maybe it's more villain dependent than I first thought.

Samooth,

Folding is quite standard shoving is good vs some opponents that 4bet wide.

Not 3 betting pre is more standard u can profitably defend here to 3x 89s seems kinda too high in defend range to 3b 100bbs deep too often.

Obv if exec folds qk and ats he's mucking here as well, flatting 4bets 100bbs deep without da nuts kinda blows.

My assumptions were more for 3x raise, against a minraiser I'd defend 89s etc. to a 4bet vs some opponents but my default would still be to fold.

The specific sizing in question is tremendously important when evaluating these decisions, but as a general rule, I would basically never fold ATs to a 4-bet and would often fold KQo/98s.

Can't speak for others, but I would certainly fold 98s in this spot. Agree that it's close though, and I'd probably call KQo here.

No, it is not important to be able to hold very strong hands on every board after calling a 4-bet 100bb deep. In fact it is almost certainly wrong to try. The range of hands that can profitably call a 4-bet is quite narrow/strong and will result in the caller holding a range that hits boards with high cards more often than it hits boards with low cards.

75% sounds like too much and probably indicates a need to tweak something, but the more important point is that 8-high boards are quite rare and shouldn't garner much of your attention when crafting pre-flop ranges.

If the lesson you've learned here is that you should start routinely calling 4-bets with suited connectors, then it sounds like this thread actually did more harm than good.

Failing to 3-bet 98s is laughably bad. What's even worse is the unstated assumption that one should 3-bet OOP with a polarized range.

Failing to flat 4-bets 100bb deep without the nuts kinda blows. Flatting 4-bets without the nuts 100bb deep should be 100% standard with a reasonably wide range of hands.

I didn't mean that, I meant that if I was to start flatting 4-bets in general I would have to be balanced in it, otherwise you are too easy to hand read against? Because always having AJ/AT/KQ in 4-bet pots OOP is going to make you very easy to play against.

Also in reference to not folding ATs and folding KQo to 4-bets, what are the reasons and I presume you are continuing by flatting ATs most of the time?

his conern is obviously not with 8-high boards specifically, but every low unconnected board (T42, 884, 953) which alltogether make up for a substansial % of all possible board outcomes. this does however seem like a spot where it is correct for the bb to play exploitively as a default and overfold quite alot (c/f) facing a cbet due to the sb beeing so nutted comparatively (assuming both sb/bb play optimally of course).

But should we flat AA some % of the time too?

If you're going to flat 4-bets I think this has to be a given, as well as doing it with KK some of the time Id guess too.

Unless it is a quite ridiculolus size, or i have some read that villain is kind of nitty, im never folding any broadway, 56s+, any pair. Basicaly just not folding any playable hand vs 4bets...
ofc that this will put us into some nasty pos flop spots and we must deal well against it

I'm having the weirdest flashback here

Tautological, but it sounds like you're simply using the word "balanced" as an applause light without understanding what it actually means. Whether a range is balanced has exactly nothing to do with how easy it is to read. Sometimes a balanced range will be very wide and hence difficult to read, such as when you open-raise the SBB. Other times a balanced range will be very narrow and hence easy to read, such as when you flat a 4-bet.

That's true. If those are the only hands you flat 4-bets with, then you are doing it wrong.

ATs is better than KQo. I would call with KQo sometimes though - against smaller 4-bets, for instance (as in the 2x/7x/18x example samooth raised).

Yes. Would need to be either very deep or very shallow before anything else could make sense.

I have nothing to add.

Perhaps when playing with very shallow stacks. Think doing so any non-zero % of the time with standard/deep stacks is quite bad.

You think wrong. It's definitely possible that optimal play involves flatting AA/KK sometimes with 100bb stack (since we haven't found the solution to the game yet), but there is no reason whatsoever to take this as a given.

LessWrong-er spotted.

Not quite. We call it "Less WrongThink" where I come from.