Micro Stakes Online NL Poker Forums

I think calling here is better than 4bet get-it-in. Value ranges vs. UTG opens are often super tight, like KK/AA, sometimes QQ, sometimes AK. And a lot of people will flat all of those hands a decent % of the time. So we really are usually crushed when we end up getting it in. It's a lot different than 4bet get it in CO vs. BTN.

With his 3bet sizing we are getting 2-1 immediate. We flop TP 1/3 the time. Sometimes we get a bet or two out of his bluffs, sometimes we lose to a better hand when we do make TP, and sometimes we get some value from underpairs, so the post flop EV is probably close to neutral or slightly +EV. So I don't think calling is super -EV. I think it is better than 4bet/stack-off with no information.

I would just fold though.

finally someone talking some sense, altho calling is never negative EV here against an unknown

finally someone talking some sense, altho calling is never negative EV here against an unknown

Pretty much impossible to say it's "never" -EV (or always +EV), since it's not super clear how "unknowns" play and it's like impossible to model.

Pretty much impossible to say it's "never" -EV (or always +EV), since it's not super clear how "unknowns" play and it's like impossible to model.

am talking in a vacuum, obv cud well be hugely minus EV if turn out to be an 11/9 nit

am talking in a vacuum, obv cud well be hugely minus EV if turn out to be an 11/9 nit

yeah I'm talking about in a vacuum as well, where we don't know anything about villain (i.e. he is unknown). It's pretty much impossible to make a definitive statement about the EV of the play when it is clearly a close decision and we don't know anything about the villain. We would have to use player population reads to approximate his tendencies, but player population assumptions are very subjective and players will disagree about how the average player plays. If we had seen how someone played some hands, assumptions can be agreed on much more easily, making it easier to approximate EV.

Calling oop is super -ev cause he can just bet any board you don't hit (>50% of boards) and you fold...bink he makes profit.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

yeah I'm talking about in a vacuum as well, where we don't know anything about villain (i.e. he is unknown). It's pretty much impossible to make a definitive statement about the EV of the play when it is clearly a close decision and we don't know anything about the villain. We would have to use player population reads to approximate his tendencies, but player population assumptions are very subjective and players will disagree about how the average player plays. If we had seen how someone played some hands, assumptions can be agreed on much more easily, making it easier to approximate EV.

ok fine is very likely to b plus EV, didn't mean to b definitive, are few opponents this flat wud b minus EV against

So what's your plan for postflop?

You gonna check fold when you miss? -ev

You gonna turn top pair into a bluff catcher?

You basically have to cooler him to get his money in postflop, you do realize that right?

4betting is clearly superior on all levels and it's not even close.

finally someone talking some sense, altho calling is never negative EV here against an unknown

Calling is completely -ev, for the fact that you have to hope he bluffs or barrels off with worse TP, and you have to fold every time you miss, since you have no postflop information on how your opponent plays.


So you basically have to cooler him postflop like vs. QQ on a QJT or if he has AQ on a AKQ board or something to get his money in.

We're only gonna flop TP 1/3 of the time as Jiggly said (and cooler him less) so that means he can fire a cbet 100% of the time and show huge profit since you are folding 2/3 of the time. That's not even mentioning the times you flop top pair and are still behind!

If that's not -ev, I don't know what is.

Postflop, he has position so he has control of the pot and one more street of information than you. Don't play oop is the number one rule in this game and here you are spewing nonsense about how it's more +ev to call than to 4bet, effectively giving the pot to your opponent 2/3 of the time with the 3rd best hand in holdem.

At WORST, you get it in here very often flipping and very rarely behind huge and find out something about his preflop 3betting range. There are only two better hands he could hold and you block both of them!

Players 3 bet a lot more aggressively against UTG raisers than they did a year ago, even at stakes as low as 4nl. Sample size is small, but villain seems to be an aggressive TAG who likes to 3 bet. 4 betting here is perfectly fine.

We're only gonna flop TP 1/3 of the time as Jiggly said (and cooler him less) so that means he can fire a cbet 100% of the time and show huge profit since you are folding 2/3 of the time. That's not even mentioning the times you flop top pair and are still behind!

Postflop, he has position so he has control of the pot and one more street of information than you. Don't play oop is the number one rule in this game and here you are spewing nonsense about how it's more +ev to call than to 4bet, effectively giving the pot to your opponent 2/3 of the time with the 3rd best hand in holdem.

Yeah, we are getting 2-1 though. So if we make more money post-flop the times we hit than we lose the times we hit, we are +EV. I'm not saying it's a given that we definitely make more money postflop, since we will get stacked sometimes when we hit. But it's definitely close. We pick up cbets and get to make some value bets (like on A and K high boards when he has underpairs like KK/QQ).

Plus nothing says you can't x/r some flops. If you think his range is wide enough to 4bet/stack-off, then it is certainly wide enough to take some pots down post-flop or even x/c with A high.

At WORST, you get it in here very often flipping and very rarely behind huge and find out something about his preflop 3betting range. There are only two better hands he could hold and you block both of them!

I think you are over-estimating how often you get it in here flipping and way underestimating how often an unknown will just have AA/KK in these positions.

4betting is clearly superior on all levels and it's not even close.

That's a pretty strong assertion to say it's not even close. Assuming a tight value range, he's going to have to be bluffing a good amount to make 4bet/stacking off +EV. And I don't think people in general have a lot of 3bet bluffs vs. UTG raisers.

Even if what SCS is saying is true about people 3bet bluffing UTG more at the micros, I still doubt an unknown's range is very wide. It might be more wide than it was a year ago, but I doubt there's that many bluffs. And even if there are a lot of bluffs, I doubt their value ranges include hands like AQ that we crush. So even if they have a ton of bluffs making 4betting +EV, flatting AK vs. a wide polarized range is still pretty good. So it is most definitely close between all three options. Saying definitively that 4bet is the play and it's not even close is pretty pretentious imo.

Yeah, we are getting 2-1 though. So if we make more money post-flop the times we hit than we lose the times we hit, we are +EV. I'm not saying it's a given that we definitely make more money postflop, since we will get stacked sometimes when we hit. But it's definitely close. We pick up cbets and get to make some thin value bets (like on A and K high boards when he has underpairs like KK/QQ). Plus nothing says you can't x/r some flops. If you think his range is wide enough to 4bet/stack-off, then it is certainly wide enough to take some pots down post-flop.

On the flip side of the coin, f you think his range is too narrow to 4bet, then CR bluffing most flops is gonna be spew.

I think you are over-estimating how often you get it in here flipping and way underestimating how often an unknown will just have AA/KK in these positions.

The fact is we don't know what his range is, so we can't make any assumptions about his 3betting range one way or the other. Calling might be ok if his range is super wide and he won't GII with worse hands ever, but assuming that without good reason is a mistake and we should lean towards AK being ahead of his range, since it's ahead of just about everything.

That's a pretty strong assertion to say it's not even close. Assuming a tight value range, he's going to have to be bluffing a good amount to make 4bet/stacking off +EV. And I don't think people in general have a lot of 3bet bluffs vs. UTG raisers. It is most definitely close between all three options.

Meh. It might be close between 4betting and folding...but calling is immediately -ev since we are going to be folding 2/3 of the time postflop and that's just simple math. We are effectively giving him 2/3 of the pot by calling oop.

We can't even realistically talk about how to turn this -ev situation into a +ev one postflop by making some moves because we have no idea how he is going to react vs. that or how his range even interacts with any postflop board.

On the flip side of the coin, f you think his range is too narrow to 4bet, then CR bluffing most flops is gonna be spew.

Please point to where I recommended check/raising flops vs. a tight range. Because I'm pretty sure I recommended folding because I think his range is tight. I only said that you can x/r vs. a wide polarized range, which you are assuming he has.

The fact is we don't know what his range is, so we can't make any assumptions about his 3betting range one way or the other. Calling might be ok if his range is super wide and he won't GII with worse hands ever, but assuming that without good reason is a mistake and we should lean towards AK being ahead of his range, since it's ahead of just about everything.

Why? You're just saying we should assume AK is ahead, we should assume 4betting is +EV, but why? Assuming people are bluffing you a lot when you have a tight perceived range (opening UTG) and no information is the real mistake.

Meh. It might be close between 4betting and folding...but calling is immediately -ev since we are going to be folding 2/3 of the time postflop and that's just simple math. We are effectively giving him 2/3 of the pot by calling oop.

What kind of math is that?

So anytime we fold 2/3 of the time post flop, it's automatically -EV? What if we were 300bb deep, and we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop, but the times we don't fold we get his whole stack? Now obviously that's not the case here, but that example just shows that your logic that says, "because we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop it is -EV," is incorrect. There's more to EV than whether or not we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop. Immediate odds, play on future streets, bluffing potential, etc., all play a role in EV.

For example, a) our immediate odds are 2-1. b) it's possible that we make more post flop when we hit than we lose when we hit c) again, if he's wide like you say he is (he has to be wide in order to 4bet profitably), we can x/r and/or x/c flops.

Please point to where I recommended check/raising flops vs. a tight range.

Plus nothing says you can't x/r some flops.

I was (wrongly?) assuming you meant C/R bluffing.

Why? You're just saying we should assume AK is ahead, we should assume 4betting is +EV, but why? Assuming people are bluffing you a lot when you have a tight perceived range (opening UTG) and no information is the real mistake.

Im not saying he's bluffing a lot. Im saying AK does pretty well vs. everything but AA and he only has 3 combos of aces in his range.

What kind of math is that?

So anytime we fold 2/3 of the time post flop, it's automatically -EV? What if we were 300bb deep, and we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop, but the times we don't fold we get his whole stack? Now obviously that's not the case here, but that example just shows that your logic that says, "because we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop it is -EV," is incorrect. There's more to EV than whether or not we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop. a) our immediate odds are 2-1. b) it's possible that we make more post flop than we lose. c) again, if he's wide like you say he is (he has to be wide in order to 4bet profitably), we can x/r and/or x/c flops.

Like I said, I'm making the assumption we are going to be c/f when we miss (which we probably should). If we miss 2/3 of the time then we are giving up on the PREFLOP pot 2/3 of the time. Maybe it's not hugely -ev or even breakeven...but that combined with the fact that we pretty much have to cooler him to win his stack, and the times when we flop top pair and are behind, make this a losing proposition imo.

Consequently, if you 4bet GII you're only gonna be a huge dog like a small fraction of the time, and you have an easy decision on the flop in a 4bet pot, pair or no pair it's prob gonna be +ev to shove. (and way higher in general since there is more in the middle)

This has other not so obvious benefits also, one of which is to develop an aggressive image, etc.

I was (wrongly?) assuming you meant C/R bluffing.

Please point to where I recommended check/raising flops vs. a tight range.. Vs. a TIGHT RANGE.

Im not saying he's bluffing a lot. Im saying AK does pretty well vs. everything but AA and he only has 3 combos of aces in his range.

Does pretty bad against KK too. And QQ it is still a dog against. Show me an EV calc where 4bet/stacking AK is +EV vs. a range that doesn't have a good amount of bluffs in it. Also, make sure the value range is reasonable because flatting JJ vs. UTG is pretty standard and flatting AK/QQ pretty common.

Like I said, I'm making the assumption we are going to be c/f when we miss (which we probably should).

We probably shouldn't if his preflop range is wide enough to 4bet/stack against.

If we miss 2/3 of the time then we are giving up on the PREFLOP pot 2/3 of the time.

Yeah but we are only putting in 1/3 of the preflop pot. i.e. we are getting 2-1. So if we give him 2/3 of the preflop pot, we get 1/3 of the preflop pot, exactly what we payed into it. Thus my point that if we can make more money post flop the times we hit than we lose the times we hit, we are +EV. Plus if he is wide enough to 4bet against than he will be wide enough to play back some of the time, and we therefore won't even be giving up the full 2/3 of the preflop pot.

Maybe it's not hugely -ev or even breakeven...but that combined with the fact that we pretty much have to cooler him to win his stack, and the times when we flop top pair and are behind, make this a losing proposition imo.

True we don't get his stack that often when we hit and he'll get our stack sometimes when we hit (like I said before). But the situation where a) we hit TP and b) he has an overpair or a set doesn't happen all that often. Plus we can even x/c x/c x/f on some boards and save money vs. his better hands. And we will pick up cbets and make some value bets pretty frequently when we do hit. Sure the pots won't be all-in pots, but they will occur more frequently.


Plus I'm not even saying that calling is clearly the right play. I'm just saying that claiming 4betting is clearly the right play and it's not even close is pretentious and wrong. It definitely is close.

Please point to where I recommended check/raising flops vs. a tight range.. Vs. a TIGHT RANGE.

Lol you said we can c/r some flops. It's up to you to tell me what you meant by that.

Does pretty bad against KK too. And QQ it is still a dog against. Show me an EV calc where 4bet/stacking AK is +EV vs. a range that doesn't have a good amount of bluffs in it. Also, make sure the value range is reasonable because flatting JJ vs. UTG is pretty standard and flatting AK/QQ pretty common.

Ya see, I don't like the assumptions you are making about what he does preflop...if those were true then it's quite obvious 4betting would be a mistake but that doesn't mean your assumptions are true.

Yeah but we are only putting in 1/3 of the preflop pot. i.e. we are getting 2-1. So if we give him 2/3 of the preflop pot, we get 1/3 of the preflop pot, exactly what we payed into it. Thus my point that if we can make more money post flop the times we hit than we lose the times we hit, we are +EV. Plus if he is wide enough to 4bet against than he will be wide enough to play back some of the time, and we therefore won't even be giving up the full 2/3 of the preflop pot.

yes of course all this makes sense.


I think you need to know a lot about his range to make any kind of assertions, that is the main reason calling oop is so bad. We know nothing...NOTHING about his range, nor NOTHING about what he does postflop with it. That is why i advocate playing aggressively here (or folding). It makes our postflop decisions way easier and arguably more +ev.

True we don't get his stack that often when we hit and he'll get our stack sometimes when we hit (like I said before). But the situation where a) we hit TP and b) he has an overpair or a set doesn't happen all that often. Plus we can even x/c x/c x/f on some boards and save money vs. his better hands. And we will pick up cbets and make some value bets pretty frequently when we do hit. Sure the pots won't be all-in pots, but they will occur more frequently.

I would make the contention that across the spectrum of possibilities we rarely ever get more than a postflop cbet out of him when we are ahead. Again, this comes from the fact that we know nothing about his postflop tendencies or his preflop range.

With all of that said, I have to add that I think folding is the best option of the 3 vs. an unknown.