Hello members of DC, I'm new here and I must say for what I've gained here so far in poker knowledge I've gained twice as much in entertainment
This will be a very lengthy first post/thread so please bear with me as I am putting effort into what I believe is an important issue for microstakes players who often face very passive opponents.
I've been playing 0.01/0.02 NL on Stars. I've suffered a few big mistakes and bad beats, playing at 0.05/0.10 ($100 bankroll). Growing impatient to grow my bankroll, I decide to increase the amount of tables that I'm playing from 2 to 6 and return to playing at 0.01/0.02. I win a few dollars and eventually go all in with KK on one table and lose my stack. Nope, not a bad beat. At least, not very likely to be one.
Preflop: I'm folded to in the CO and raise to 0.06. Sb 3-Bets to 0.18. I 4-bet to 0.50 feeling confident and having heard in a video that I should go all-in with KK (No ranting or criticism intended). Villain goes all in (approx $5). I call, and behold a pair of Aces. I smash my fist on my desk and lose $5.
After reviewing my hand in my hand recording/ stat displaying HUD program, I conclude that I made a pretty bad call.
Villain stats: Hands: 71, VPIP: 21, PFR: 1, 3bet: 6.3 %.
Villain is mostly tight and extremely passive, but not so much that he would be afraid of going all in with AA... With a PFR of 1 percent (rounded) he raised exactly 1 hand (which was the same hand he 3-betted exactly once) prior to our encounter. That gives an un-rounded PF of 1.4. An error of 40% is pretty bad so I would recommend displaying your PFR with at least 1 decimal place if you are playing with extremely passive players.
Normally a sample size of 71 would be good enough to roughly determine an opponent's preflop raising range. That is, his PFR would be accurate down to a 1-5 percent. However, for the case where an opponent has a PFR of 1 %, well, he can effectively have a true PFR as big as 4-5% (not very likely though) (Upon further investigation, I found that an error of more than 10% or more is not uncommon with this sample size) and as small as raising only aces (0.45%), which is much more likely because it would mean our estimation of 1.4 PFR is off by only one percent. So we cannot determine from our sample size of 71 whether our opponent is raising and reraising with JJ, QQ, KK and AA or only AA and KK, and such. TLDR: villain sample size of 71 with 1 percent PFR = don't call all in with KK because he most likely has aces (at the micro limits).
If we suppose that, for the same stats, we had a sample size of over 1000, and we indeed found that our opponent had a true PFR of 1.4, this would mean that it is very likely that our oppenent is raising QQ, KK and AA. We can ignore the chance that he has KK as it would be a tie, and compare the chance of him having AA vs QQ. About fifty-fifty.
Why in the world would such a passive opponent reraise all in with QQ? And why in the world would we ever accept such high variance for a 50 percent chance of winning (not really)? Especially when we are prone to going on tilt as we are not used to losing entire stacks?
1- If we are not reading our opponent's stats before playing a hand like KK, then we are playing too many tables.
2- Do not always go all in with KK.
3- KK is beat if villain is raising and reraising and has a PFR of 0-4% over a somewhat useful sample size (50+).
4- Display PFR with at least one decimal.
5- Sample size is not just king, it can make the difference between increasing your bankroll with relatively little variance to going on tilt and crippling your growth.
Please feel free to add on to this theory and/or tell me that I'm wrong and that I actually made the right play.
As a side note, I am interested in knowing how often this case arises and how big of an issue it actually is, because I have a feeling that we do not consider it as much as we should. I have had this happen the other way around, more than once But of course my PFR is not 1%...lol.
A fellow from the 2+2 forums has me believing that with such a small sample size of 71 I could interpret my villain's 1.4 percent PFR as being probably an underestimation, since at these stakes most ppl play more hands. My average PFR atm is 13 and during my session, I had another table running with my PFR at 3. So this would make my all-in with KK pretty decent.
But the fact that it is my opponent that pushed all-in on top of my 50 cent 4 bet leaves me uncertain because, given my opponent's probable skill level it is possible that his all in shove was a complete donk move, but it could be just as probable or more probable that his shove is a sign that he holds AA.
I would like to know what different people would do in this situation, given the HUD stats (including sample size), and why.