Full Ring No Limit Poker Forums

He's not 3betting 3% in this spot, he's probably 3betting something like 0.8% in this spot.

He's not 3betting 3% in this spot, he's probably 3betting something like 0.8% in this spot.

I think this means calling pre isn't that +EV, obviously 4betting is completely terrible. I'll check this up on my own because it has me curious if pre is a call or not. I always find these narrow range spots weird and it's a big part of why I don't play FR, but yeah I really should just work on it.

Note to everyone saying that we should 4bet, study harder.

I think that calling a somewhat balanced range is going to be profitable as long as we can take him off AA on some boards, and I expect him to make mistakes postflop. I'm calling AA in this spot too, and will be calling QJs, T9s, sometimes. I'm fairly sure 4betting AA is less profitable than calling it, and once you want to call AA it lets you call a decent range along with it.

I think that calling a somewhat balanced range is going to be profitable as long as we can take him off AA on some boards, and I expect him to make mistakes postflop. I'm calling AA in this spot too, and will be calling QJs, T9s, sometimes. I'm fairly sure 4betting AA is less profitable than calling it, and once you want to call AA it lets you call a decent range along with it.

Calling QJs, T9s in this spot is almost certainly a leak. I don't think we are going to be able to take him off AA very often, if at all. He is nit, and nits usually play poorly postflop. They don't wait around all day for AA so they can fold it.

once you want to call AA it lets you call a decent range along with it.

This logic is flawed and is really not true at all vs bad opponents.

I'm a live player, so I'm not all that familiar with HUD stats, but your initial post seemed to indicate 3% three betting range. If he's 3betting .8%, then that's 1326 x .008 = 11 hands, which is just AA or KK. In that case, KK becomes a fold for you, as does anything that is not AA unless you're looking to set mine OOP.

I think this means calling pre isn't that +EV, obviously 4betting is completely terrible. I'll check this up on my own because it has me curious if pre is a call or not. I always find these narrow range spots weird and it's a big part of why I don't play FR, but yeah I really should just work on it.

Note to everyone saying that we should 4bet, study harder.

I play and study most everyday. 4-bet bluffing is a profitable line to take with the initial situation as described by the OP, where the villain is never stacking off with QQ or AK.

This logic is flawed and is really not true at all vs bad opponents.

A range of 6 AA, 6 KK, ~2-3 TT-QQ, 1 QJs, 1 JTs, 1 T9s, is going to do pretty well here. He's going to give us a ton of credit after we call the 3bet oop and allow us to get to showdown and take him off his bluffs a good amount. We're getting great odds to see a flop and only need to win back 1/3 of the pot for the call to break even, and we may end up playing three-way, which is fine.

I don't think we can say that good suited connectors cannot be played profitably with a call here in a vacuum. If we play postflop competently I actually think it will be quite easy to play them profitably.

The knowledge that your opponent has either AA or KK gives you an advantage. The less he knows about what you have, the better because it allows you to play with almost close to perfect information. However, being OOP is hard because you have a harder time controlling the size of the pot. That is, every time you're ahead, you don't necessary get to play for his stack.

If you can force him to fold suitably scary boards with some frequency, then it increasingly becomes a call. But I certainly would not suggest to anyone that they play against a known premium hand from OOP, particularly deep.

Flavas--

What are your stats for his flatting an EP raise? Is it possible if you look through his hand histories, that he has ever flatted AA pre?

If so, perhaps his 1% is extra tight, but it does not mean with absolute certainty AA, right? He could be flatting AA, and decide to "what the hell, JJ is too weak to just call with"

I mean you only have one instance of him doing this, although it seems really scary at first, when I think about it, it seems less so. He only ever had AA once in 169 times with the opportunity to 3bet an EP raiser?

I hope I am explaining my thought okay here.

which

I think it's definitely heavily weighted to AA. If he's the type that's tricky enough to flat AA he's never the type to 3bet only .8%.

The range I was giving him against which 4betting was losing had him with AA less than 50% of the time.

flavas--

I get the range, and the actual expanded range you are giving him, vs his perceived range of less than 1 percent.

Have you ever seen him show up with AA by just flatting IP to a riase when he was LP? that is the question. Seems easy enough to find with HEM.

Then you can start thinking about the questions.

which

Then your math is wonky. Like I said, there are 1326 starting hand combos. You originally said 3% and were including hands like AK and QQ. I did math on 3% which is 1326 x 3% = 40 hands.

A pocket pair is 6 hands. 1326 x .8 = 12 hands or so. So that would mean two PPs. That would be AA or KK. Therefore he would have AA exactly half of the time.

Question to OP: If villian c-bets OTF, are you just folding? What about 2 barrels?