PLO50 AAJ6ss 3bet pot flop line?

I think that if You 3b with weak AAxx is to get it in on a lot of flops, specialy this one that doesn't hit hard his range. About sizing well... I would bet 1/2 to get calls from hands that probably folds vs pot bet, like KK, QQ, and if he shoves then call.

I dont personally like to bet small with mediocre type hand if I think its plus ev to pot and stack off in low SPR spots. It might get more action from some of those KK or QQ type but it will also bring in some one pair hands that still have potentially 10 outs. I think getting those to fold is quite a big deal. If I had at least bd fd it would make half pot more reasonable option.

It looks like you over bet the flop, but that impossible in PLO. Offcourse Cbetting big isn't to bad I think.

Cheers,
SDK1987

I see the point of the pot bet on flop. I kinda prefer to get calls from any pair, any GS, to capitalize on that money by shoving the turn and getting more folds there... On the other hand a passive player might call all those hands vs a pot bet, so probably in this case is better to get max value that way... Yeah I like it more a pot bet for that reason...

Honestly not sure what size gives You the most EV, but You are not wrong by betting pot, the only option that I don't like is check back, your passive opponent is not going to bet often worse hands on the turn yo get value in that way.

I agree with c-betting pot otf, our hand is not polarized enough to bet half pot and we are not going to fold anways so the full pot is maxing our FE against the marginal parts of villains range like naked pair stuff, also the value of blocking nutflush goes down alot in 3BP´s.

I think folding AAxx against a shove on this texture with SPR lower than 4.5 is a serious mistake against any type of opponent.

With SPR 3.5 solver is bet-folding half pot with these kind of dry AAxx with A♠: blocker and bad playability with checking. Versus passive opponent it can be best to just check behind but like my hand in this one is pretty bad to face big turn stabs. Filters I used exclude flush draws, straight draws, backdoor fd and two pair or better.

But yeah its pretty easy to understand why hands with A♠: without solid backup are not stacking off. Big potion of MP stack off range include it and without it its pretty value heavy.

In here I filtered only A♠: in MP range to respond to cbet:

So basically if villain cant have nut fd there are way less semibluffs we would be doing ok versus with AA. Other fd are supposed to come with some form of support like oesd or board pair. Those hands even without 2 pair or better are going to crush dry AA.

Thing is that in real life people doesn't play GTO, in those sims a low FD need some backup to go all in, in real life almost nobody folds any FD specially at low SPR. Usually people fold way less to 3b than they should, so their range is wider on the flop. People would at least call 1 bet with any pair, and if you 3b often, any KK would seem them like the nuts on that board vs your range that doesn´t hit often on that flop (at least in my experience with bad players at PLO50 and PLO100).

Vs a nit open raise I guess he can go all in with this: 8%: (88,44,33,84,83,43,cc,567,(56,57,67,25):8,(56,57,67,25):4,(56,57,67,25):KK,(56,57,67,25):QQ)!AA and you have 50% equity. Thats any 2 pair+, wrap, FD, pair+SD, KK and QQ + SD The opponent has this range only 29% of the time, so you have a TON of fold equity.

Now lets assume that some players doesn't go all in if they don't have 2 pair+, and just call everything else, I mean he call with (cc,567,56,57,67,25)!(AA,88,44,33,84,83,34) and he has that 27% of the time and you can go all in on any turn that is not a club.

Vs a tighter all in range consisting only of 2 pair+, FD+pair, FD+SD, FD+KK or QQ you have 46% equity so even at an SPR of 5, you can go all in having the needed equity. He has that range only 18.6% of the time, so he is mostly folding and have some calls. Inside that all in range, he only has at least bottom 2 11% of the time, so more ofthen than not, you are going to be vs some kind of draw.

All that is assuming an 8% opening range without AA. Now, vs a wider range of $FI20 (20%), your equity vs that tight all in range (2 pair+, FD+pair, FD+SD, FD+KK or QQ) is 38% and he has that range 18% of the time, so your FE is still pretty high, and after making a cbet if your opponent goes all in, you can't fold with your 38% equity.

Some people is crazy and vs the wider all in range (88,44,33,84,83,43,cc,567,(56,57,67,25):8,(56,57,67,25):4,(56,57,67,25):KK,(56,57,67,25):QQ) you have 45% equity wich means at SPR 4.5 you can go all in.

People fold less vs 3b than they should, also many times go all in with hands that should fold or only call. Some players fold hands that should call. Some donk any 2 pair instead of making some checks, many doesn't donk with some draws that should bet/fold... So it's hard to know exactly what is best, it's very player dependent, but I think that betting AA at low SPR and fold on this type of boards is a leak in real world vs the real people pushing the buttons. Also I don't know how often we should cbet this board according to the sims, but having a TON of fold equity, in real play we should cbet a lot vs most players.

I wasn't talking of making habit of bet-folding AA. But when we have that key card A♠: we are blocking ton of those most likely semibluff hands.

Also checked how solver is approaching this spot. There is low frequency donk betting but like 90% check. Sure some people might be very straightforward and just donk strong hands but I think it's lot more common that opponent check most if not whole range.

One curious thing in solver approach is that it will x-c almost all sets. I suppose because they don't need huge amount of protection so they mainly protect call range. This is something that almost never happen in real life imo.

Two pairs seem to play aggro but times opponent have bottom two he will x-c half of them. Straight draws without two pair are not really raising much outside some having 8 blocker.

I don´t have the ability to run every spot in PLO Vision so I used BU vs CO alternatively. Maybe you could run it back BU vs CO with your software to see if there is indeed such a difference? If the difference is really that big, my following estimations would not be valid anymore. This would be pretty significant though and good to know for me.

Let´s start with what I have got: Here at my place PLO Vision is following a mixed bet-sizing strategy betting AA either pot or half pot depending on sidecards:

Assuming the way you played betting pot (which I would prefer and is fine too according to solver) you would have to call 90% of your AAxx so if you bet pot you have to stack-off in general otherwise I guess this is a serious deviation from GTO which demands an explicitely defined and value-heavy Check-raising range but we would have to run the whole sim using Monkersolver giving him 1 sizing only to see the results according to a single bet-sizing strategy how I use it.

If you would have bet the half pot size (following the complex strategy with 2 sizings you need some randomizers here otherwise you are not balanced), you would also follow a mixed strategy aswell when facing the check-raise folding some AAxx but still gii with most AAxx combos (about 2/3).
Specifically the Nutflushdraw Blocker you have would be a fold in a mixed strategy. Probably because it´s blocking part of villains semi-bluffing range.

If Solver is not distinct in its actions either, I would not agonize about that spot rather considering villains´ tendencies as mentioned

Thing is that in real life people doesn't play GTO, in those sims a low FD need some backup to go all in, in real life almost nobody folds any FD specially at low SPR.

. If spots are close, exploitative adjustments to the tendencies should come naturally. I am never folding this either.

in plo trainer we have slightly different board 8♠:4♠:3♦:
checking 35% is same, but we pot 4% more, which could be because of combinatoric range effekts

btw postflop we only have there 100bb, 50bb+lower or higher, but unfortunally no 70bbs. and with 50bb he already would start potting little bit of 70%, 100 just around 30%.

i think too that potting is fine here as in the explantion in the open post with the 70bbs and villain seems to be pretty recreational ish and just looks fine overall. although AAJ6rb i would personally just call here to reduce the variance but 3bet is fine of course too^^

Yeah as I said in OP if open raiser was 100bb deep or close I would just call or if I had read that either of blinds was 3bet happy I would probably also lean toward trap call.

In general I aim to have half pot and pot ranges on these two toned unpaired/non straight flops in 3bet pots when SPR is like 2-5 at least. Though 2 does start to be close probably on whatever we want to bet-fold much at all. Well I think its fine at least in some high card flops where our cbet range is wide. What hands to put into each other is often somewhat clear like small size is used with polarized range and pot with medium ones that are still good enough to stack off. Well of course likely doing good amount of mistakes in it but I think we lose quite a lot of EV by simplifying to one size in general.