---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by jk3a (Mid Stakes)

Well if he's unknown, you wont have any idea of their tendencies pre flop either. And if he's unknown, you wont have the sort of history/dynamic where he is going to be 5bet jam bluffing A-rag type hands either. So he will usually fold his 3bet bluffs or worse 3bet value hands like KQ/KJ, or you will be flipping or crushed when you get it in, meaning he plays pretty perfectly.



If he starts to think our 4bet range is extremely polarized and is likely to 5bet bluff, then why can't we depolarize it and start 4betting thinner for value?

this is basically the same as flatting sometimes when u have good reasons and not random ones.. more or less adjusting. Every time u flop nothing with no info its gonna be tricky even IP.. getting AK in is fine for ur range and likely profitable vs most regs in a steal position and takes a lot of the guess work out. I dont recommend avoiding tuff decisions just for the sake of not wanting to be put in a tuff spot, but when its fine for ur range and likely profitable I am def ok with it. Especially when u can flat at a better time with more info when ever you wish.

"pretty awful" is very anti learning. Those words imply that the 3bet was significantly -ev which is simply not true. I could be convinced with a bunch of ev calcs and a lot of sound arguments that 3betting 83s or 35s is slightly -ev, but I doubt that's the case either.

Let's say you can profitably 5bet jam junk hands on a certain frequency. For example every fourth time you get 4bet and you have air. If you start jamming significantly more frequently than that, it will most certainly not be +EV anymore. So, assuming you can only do this profitably with certain frequency, why would you ever choose to do it with 25% equity hand (83s) when you could always do it with 30% equity hands like 76s and still maintain that same frequency?

Obviously this would be ignoring gameflow totally, but I think you get enough spots where you think shoving is OK gameflow wise that you never have to shove those hands with super low equity when called. 100bb deep that extra 5% is 10bb difference when called and that's just huge.

Also same could be applied to 3betting, why would you want to 3bet hand like 83s which is in the bottom 27% percentile of the hands when you are folding sooo many hands that have more equity and better playability? Good hands to 3bet bluff with should be the bottom of your flatting range or top of your folding range, not bottom 27% of all hands.

Obviously that 83s jam very early in the match can't be "huge mistake" like someone said and I agree that it could possibly even be breakeven in direct equity, but maintaining your image for folding equity to bluffjam hands with 5-6% more equity later in the match also has some EV. In my experience especially against lower stake regs showing down 1 or 2 bluffjams has really significant effect on your FE for future jams, many regs just get scared of 4bet/bluffing and start 4b/calling way wider, which usually is an adjustment I don't want them to make because I'm a scandi, so I usually can't resist jamming.

why

people 3bet a ton and it's very +ev to 4bet those hands for value and all the other stuff you're talking about can be accomplished with a different part of your range

Let's say you can profitably 5bet jam junk hands on a certain frequency. For example every fourth time you get 4bet and you have air. If you start jamming significantly more frequently than that, it will most certainly not be +EV anymore. So, assuming you can only do this profitably with certain frequency, why would you ever choose to do it with 25% equity hand (83s) when you could always do it with 30% equity hands like 76s and still maintain that same frequency?

Obviously this would be ignoring gameflow totally, but I think you get enough spots where you think shoving is OK gameflow wise that you never have to shove those hands with super low equity when called. 100bb deep that extra 5% is 10bb difference when called and that's just huge.

Also same could be applied to 3betting, why would you want to 3bet hand like 83s which is in the bottom 27% percentile of the hands when you are folding sooo many hands that have more equity and better playability? Good hands to 3bet bluff with should be the bottom of your flatting range or top of your folding range, not bottom 27% of all hands.

Obviously that 83s jam very early in the match can't be "huge mistake" like someone said and I agree that it could possibly even be breakeven in direct equity, but maintaining your image for folding equity to bluffjam hands with 5-6% more equity later in the match also has some EV. In my experience especially against lower stake regs showing down 1 or 2 bluffjams has really significant effect on your FE for future jams, many regs just get scared of 4bet/bluffing and start 4b/calling way wider, which usually is an adjustment I don't want them to make because I'm a scandi, so I usually can't resist jamming.

opening my ranges early in the match, ie 3betting 83s has value to see how he'll be reacting to 3bets more quickly. the 4.5% diff in equity when called really doesn't matter much. I would say that unless a guy is 4betting very often, game flow becomes a fairly dominant factor for me when deciding whether to 5bet shove.

Your frequency and equities arguments are very sound in general, I think they prob just discount gameflow too much.

people 3bet a ton and it's very +ev to 4bet those hands for value and all the other stuff you're talking about can be accomplished with a different part of your range

I'm not denying 4betting AQ is +EV. it obviously is. But a major reason why it is is that he will fold a lot (bluffs and depolarized value hands). Just seems better to keep all the dominated stuff in. +EV doesnt mean optimal.

which different part of my range?

thanks for the discussion btw

this is basically the same as flatting sometimes when u have good reasons and not random ones.. more or less adjusting. Every time u flop nothing with no info its gonna be tricky even IP.. .

i dont think flatting AQ/AK as a standard before theres any 4bet/5bet dynamic in order to keep in dominated hands is a random reason. it actually seems like a pretty good reason.

i also dont think its that tricky to play AK when you dont flop an A or a K. Depending on board texture/bet sizing, you can float (though often you have the best hand so its not really a float), you can raise, ect. On a lot of boards you will fold out a ton of the hands that would have folding to your 4bet pre, so you dont lose that much FE post flop (and you gain some against his AK hands). plus you have really good implied odds for hitting an A or a K since he will bluff them.

i dont really agree with the argument that you should 4bet if you dont know his post flop tendencies. If you dont know anything about his post flop tendencies, then you likely dont know anything about his 5bet jamming tendencies either. And AK is a very good hand to use to find out about his post flop tendencies in 3bet pots.

i agree you shouldnt be doing anything for random reasons, but I disagree that starting out flatting AK/AQ is based on random reasoning. seems like 4betting because you dont know anything about him postflop is more random of a reason than the ones I presented for flatting.

btw, thanks for the discussion, Jo

good video man. i dont even play HU and find these vids so awesome to watch. tons of interesting spots. seems like i could watch and rewatch and keep finding new things to think about! cheers!

I'm not denying 4betting AQ is +EV. it obviously is. But a major reason why it is is that he will fold a lot (bluffs and depolarized value hands). Just seems better to keep all the dominated stuff in. +EV doesnt mean optimal.

which different part of my range?

thanks for the discussion btw

AT/AJ do very well against that polarized range

AT/AJ do very well against that polarized range

but not as well against the depolarized part

but not as well against the depolarized part

well of course not. It's impossible for you to prove that flatting AQ/AK is optimal. Your argument is based mostly on speculation.

well of course not. It's impossible for you to prove that flatting AQ/AK is optimal. Your argument is based mostly on speculation.

i agree. i cant prove it. but by the same token, i dont think 4betting with no reads/history can be proven to be optimal either. that doesnt mean having a discussion about is bad/we cant learn from it, does it?

i agree. i cant prove it. but by the same token, i dont think 4betting with no reads/history can be proven to be optimal either. that doesnt mean having a discussion about is bad/we cant learn from it, does it?

I think its a good discussion btw, and a good question.

I am still in the 4b camp vs total unknowns w/AK and flatting AQ.. but I am def flatting AK sometimes for sure, especially later on when I know i'm gonna gain more from it with more info. I like flatting AQ cuz u will still dominate the same parts of his range that AK would.. KQ/QJ/AJ/AT etc.. I can think of some smaller reasons, such as when u 4b someone who is planning to 3b u a lot from steal positions it may discourage him from doing it as much etc...seems like flatting AQ and 4b AK gives u a nice balance of both things.. ima think about this more good discussion

i agree. i cant prove it. but by the same token, i dont think 4betting with no reads/history can be proven to be optimal either. that doesnt mean having a discussion about is bad/we cant learn from it, does it?

again, of course not. i'm just not sure what your hoping to get out of the discussion. Most of your replies indicate that you want to convince others that flatting AQ/AK vs 3bets is optimal in a majority of situations. If this is wrong, my apologies.

However, calculating the ev of calling with those hands is nearly impossible. There are some situations where I prefer calling because I feel getting the money in is -ev, but given the rampant 3betting in today's games and the fact that calling could actually lead us to make some very -ev plays with postflop mistakes, I believe 4betting in most situations to be best. Outside of me saying that you are right, I can't imagine this 'discussion' ever ending.

again, of course not. i'm just not sure what your hoping to get out of the discussion. Most of your replies indicate that you want to convince others that flatting AQ/AK vs 3bets is optimal in a majority of situations. If this is wrong, my apologies.

However, calculating the ev of calling with those hands is nearly impossible. There are some situations where I prefer calling because I feel getting the money in is -ev, but given the rampant 3betting in today's games and the fact that calling could actually lead us to make some very -ev plays with postflop mistakes, I believe 4betting in most situations to be best. Outside of me saying that you are right, I can't imagine this 'discussion' ever ending.

I apologize if my posts came off as my trying to 'convince' others that i was right. That certainly wasnt my intention. Rather, I was trying to present the other side of the coin as well as probe for more concrete justification for 4betting than was initially presented. I feel like that leads to educational discussions where arguments against my initial opinion could be presented, resulting in my learning.

I hope Jo didnt take my posts that way as well, but if so, I apologize.

I apologize if my posts came off as my trying to 'convince' others that i was right. That certainly wasnt my intention. Rather, I was trying to present the other side of the coin as well as probe for more concrete justification for 4betting than was initially presented. I feel like that leads to educational discussions where arguments against my initial opinion could be presented, resulting in my learning.

I hope Jo didnt take my posts that way as well, but if so, I apologize.

not necessary.