they weren't bluffing
just 10nl level of play

I know, I thought we were talking generally about bluffcatching.

Ok, so at what arbitrary point do we start treating our opponents as if their bets and raises mean exactly what they suggest? Very slippery slope, no?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

what do you mean?

Jamming TT over an UTG raise + MP 3bet isn't bluffing?

You would have seen these spots so many times right?

how many times you snap shoved here and encountered AA?
how many times u encountered QQ and below?
how many times in a 3+ all-in pre does KK hold up actually?

I recently returned to poker after some years and started low - I have about 70k hands at 10NL. I haven't seen a hand close to this yet (i.e. raising and seeing 3 raises before it gets back to me at 6 max, and don't remember one from years ago even.

I faced this routinely in 2nl and 5nl esp during weekends

I do fold QQ or AK pretty often when it should be a call theoretically. Actually one of the first big leaks I fixed when I started playing poker again was to not stack off with AK without even thinking about it. I kind of figured it out after losing the 8th or 10th stack to KK or AA vs. 2-5NL regulars that don't 3,4,5-bet light at all.

But KK is just too good imo.

If you hesitate to put 100BB pre with KK (besides against a 5 vpip nit and I would still get it in) on any single spot you need to lower stakes. It's not even a tough spot and it has marginal impact on your long term EV anyway, still it will make you money on the long run since it's optimal play, even if you could argue some other line would make you more money.

1) - then minimizing variance is better

2) no, it won't - when my long term is not 1billion hands and the OP says he has not encountered this spot often

3) optimal play vs non-optimal opponents is not optimal

{Is Preflop 4 way gangbang in NLHE solved first of all?}

This is nothing to do with fear, but thanks.

1- I'm personaly always prefering to take what I think is EV+ even if it has marginal impact on my long term winnings and increases variance (given that I play in a stake where I don't care about variance)

2- Or in a lot of cases it still is optimal, and in a lot of cases suboptimal play vs non-optimal opponents is still suboptimal, and if you don't know what to do, turning to optimal play is going to be a good enough idea.

3-You're right, it's not really solved for this, I was mostly going off of extrapolating from other situations, but yeah this is a fair criticism. I've still seen situations like this unfold constantly in my pool and I see all kind of garbage so I would snap call knowing it's a huge EV+ in my pool at least

This being zoom is a factor imo, you see much less crazy **** relative to regular. Theres little getting bored and making a random play, and you can go broke fast if youre crazy.

Also if its a factor this was 11am on a monday.

zoom/anonymous tables - stick to balance/gto

I ran this is in snowie - snowie calls only with AA - FYI - but it is tight and nitty as sh*t

You know what, I've just tried to model this situation in simplenash in a way that can be "aproximately solved" and indeed the GTO play is to call only with AA, so I stand corrected. Having said that in my pool I'm always calling.

The way I simplified it is I gave a certain position an open raise with 3bet-looking size and a 3bet-looking range, then solved for the shoves, calls and overcalls for 100bb and the overcalls are AA only.

1) given that I play in a stake where I don't care about EV too

2) isn't the premise of GTO that there is no incentive to deviate but once opponent deviates - you deviate? - anyway dont want to get into GTO vs GTFO

2&3) my pet peeve : People talk with certainty about a problem where there is no solution yet or apply/extrapolate a solution with tacit assumptions to spots that violate those fundamental assumptions

read my post before yours, I basically reply to this

just curious:
what range you gave for the shoves for BTN and the overcall at BB ?
there is still MP left to act - what range we should give for his call?

That doesn't surprise me. My thinking at the time was that i wasnt that worried about the first shove, but that said the olayer was reggy looking, so it nakes sense for a too strong to fold to weak to 4 bet normal hand like tt/jj but more likely AK, but small chance of aa/kk. The caller i discounted ak a bit so put them on qq/kk/aa. Plus then the 3 better behind me is likely not 3 betting that often v utg, so AA could be 10-20% chance (maybe more given i block ak).

You see crazy **** still at 10nlz granted, with random shoves, but not from.villains like the first shover and i cant think of a time i see a cold call of a shove with garbage.

AA/KK, or just AA if its me.

I like to think on another forum somewhere MP is talking about folding the other 2 Ks

As I said I only gave the "3bet-looking-openraiser" a 3bet range (solved) and I solved for shove/folds, calls and overcalls, those are not ranges I gave them, but ranges that just got solved right now under my model. Basically anyone after someone goes all in and second guy cold calls, continues only with AA, even the 3bettor that put his 7bb in the pot.

The shover happens to go all in with AK,KK+ and few AXs bluffs, the cold caller AA,KK and any overcall after that only AA

Thinking more about it it was the presence of MP that swung it for me, not that they are that likely to have AA, but that their presence makes the first shove feel stronger than a random crazy idiot tilt play.

This actually is a very big factor and I am sure you placed heavy weightage on this - I would too in this spot

that's why i replied you only know the game dynamics

You took a decision with all the available (limited) info at that time - once you folded, what they had is irrelevant.

Here's what I solved:
This is the 3bet range (taken from already solved aproximate range)


The following ranges are not prestablished.

This is what it solved for cold 4bet all-in, although depending on the position on the table it changes a little bit:


This is what it solved as first cold caller to the all-in:


And this is any overcall after that: