AQo utg vs 3 from cut off

Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY
I don't know about you, but UTG I open about 17%, Snowie too, and Janda 14,5%.
Go ahead, open that much and fold anything until AQo and tell me it's not overfolding. (Janda and Snowie call the 3bet every day with AQo)
By the way I don't see what people have with bluff4betting AQo, I think it's an awful spew.

You and I have had this discussion before. Real poker is all about trading mistakes, not about GTO. If you overfold slightly OOP preflop, AND if your opponent by a miracle discovers that sitting in CO vs UTG AND decides to raise you with trash (having three players yet to speak), then you will, provided your flop+turn+river play is FLAWLESS, lose a fraction (something like 0.1 bb) each time you fold a hand that "should" marginally be called.

But, to balance this "leak", you'll find that when you call with your good hands, your BAD overbluffing opponent will barrel into your nuts, making 1.0 bb "mistakes" (as opposed to your 0.1bb "mistake"). Don't keep your opponents "in line" by policing them. Encourage them to make their BIG mistakes by making SMALL mistakes yourself. In the present situation, it is a fact (that you consistently forget) that no matter how bad he is, he'll have the upper hand postflop in marginal situations. It is damned hard to play perfect poker OOP, but near "perfect" is achievable IP.

You should be the guy overbluffing slightly (even a lot, but never with big bets) preflop and on flop IP, taking advantage of guys thinking marginal hands play well OOP in 3-bet pots. It is so, so much easier. This dude's stats are pretty much the stats I have when I am in that mood (which isn't always). But almost all 3-bet % is in position.

See, I am trading small mistakes (emulating that's LAG-tard, but raising/betting smaller) on the cheap streets, but then I play normal poker with only normal bluffing if I think the situation warrants it. You can be pretty sure I'd have at least top two (usually better would be required, depends on opponent, betting thin for value is pointless when if called, all you can hope and pray for is a split) to fire this river, and I'd actually fire small-ish at most ONCE only post-flop with this texture holding shit (which would be most of the time when in that mood). As you can see from the replies, many would fold flop (in the shoes of UTG). There would be little of implied odds calling flop vs me, because I'd totally shut down on an QJTx board holding shit vs UTG.

These last items is all from the perspective of a decent LAG-tard:)

@plopfessional : I don't have Snowie, I just use the Snowie's Preflop Advisor and he said it was a call (and a friend who uses Snowie confirmed it) so I'm surprised by your info... Snowie seems to make weirder and weirder "adaptative" stuffs which I find really uninteresting to say the least (think about stealin x3,5 BU rofl) but anyway thanks for the info/correction !
What yo dou think about Snowie's actual (or past) ranges in general ?

@Yohan : I've given up talking with you, you clearly doesn't understand a damn thing about GTO (which I didn't pretend I played or even tried to, I didn't even use the word !), not to say about sound poker maths, you always think that what you're doing is magically the perfect exploitative play available and that everyone not doing so must just be a balancing nerd value cutting himself. Must be a cool life !

Cool down.

This hand here you are worried about overfolding preflop and then you advocate a play that will lose you your stack 80%+ of the time. Do some hand reading man. You have MORE info than that the guy raising it up preflop is loose. Namely, he raises pre, bets flop, bets turn, bets river AI vs UTG with that particular board.

About GTO: This is precisely what the programs you constantly refer to attempts at preflop. They claim at least. I know (as opposed to most poker players) what GTO is. I can even prove mathematically Nash equilibria exist. Can you? There's otherwise a very elegant and fairly accessible proof based on Brouwer's fixed point theorem I can recommend (with modest prerequisites, an introductory course in point set topology (they usually include a proof of the fixed point theorem as well, so you don't have to take that at face value) together with introductory analysis and algebra suffices).

It shines through that you are

• Very clever. I mean it!
• Have humor and write well
• Are pretty good at poker
• Are yet still in the very early learning stages based on how extremely enthusiastic you are about certain aspects of the game and eager to write on peoples noses what is right and what is wrong, but ignorant of other aspects you have yet to learn. All signs of a newbie.

It is good for you that you are enthusiastic about all tools, good books, and discussing poker. But you are far from a good hand reader yet, and that is what makes a really good player.

I hope we can get along. I really do.

PS. I have written so much about approximately GTO-based bluffing frequencies and bluff catching frequencies and explaining the difference between GTO-based bluff-raising-catching and catching straight bet out bluffs etc, etc, so that the others around here are fed up with it. This is why I avoid the topic nowadays. You'd know had you been here more than a couple of weeks.

PPS. Nash's original paper (his second on the topic to be precise, the first was very brief) actually has an example featuring a 3-handed poker game. Highly unusual for a pure math research paper. You can get at it here (the title is Non-Cooperative Games) provided you have JSTOR access. If anyone is interested, but don't have JSTOR access, I can mail it. (I think JSTOR allows anyone willing to register to have a free look at 3 publications or so per month.) Might be nice to know where all this GTO-hype in poker really comes from:)

That's exactly why it's no use talking with a guy like you... and I already happen to have one at home, it's tiring.
Wow, you think you're the shit dude, you know one or two theorems and all, right ? What can I say against that ♦
Several years ago I contemplated for a while the idea of making a thesis (partially) on Brouwer. I'm less knowleadgable about Nash though, I only helped a friend with his master's memory on mixed strategies.
It's completely fine, because it hasn't anything to do with the point here !

It's all about that with guys like you, wow, maths are complicated, better play stupid poker then, and when people disagree let's tell them maths are too hard and faraway from the concrete game !
I didn't use the "GTO" word on purpose because I'm tired of the "oh, we haven't solved the game yet" line. I just said "Janda's ranges", you made up all the shit from there. Before being the famous writer you know, Janda is a guy, with (I think and you don't and it's fine) good ranges. That's what I like about him, he doesn't really care about earning a Field Medal, he uses sound maths reasoning to construct sound poker playing backed up with years of practice.
If you ask him about AQo he won't answer with a equity calculation or whatever, he'll tell you about villain's ranges and why he thinks it's playable in practice.
(On the contrary I like Snowie less and less as it seems more and more about massive empirical datas without meaning and following fashion without thinking like it's a disease.)

I'm a bad hand reader, sure, completely possible. Go tell midstakes pro earning their lives playing NL200-500 ZOOM and calling with AQo every day that they are bad hand readers too, then, I suppose they'd like to know.
I've yet lot to learn about poker, so do they, and nobody knows everything and all, but it's too simple telling people their maths are wrong and your experience is clean perfect. You just don't understand everything about where maths are placed (special mention to your "I 3bet looser than you but KQs is not in my value range" :P) and what can or cannot be played at poker, there are people trying apparently weird things and winning with it, you'd be surprised.
Ten years ago people wouldn't hear about raising SC in EP, too hard to play etc, today it's about playing 3bet pots OOP, tomorrow it'll be something else, the theory and the meta of poker is evolving and every time it's crushing people's assumptions about what's possible or not in the game, that's what is so fucking interesting about the game in the first place in my noob's opinion.

Don't call AQo I don't care, I'm not ordering anybody to play like I do, but please, PRETTY PLEASE, don't answer with non related mathematicals things to make yourself sound clever, with me it just won't work anyway.
(The same way you might be proud of your Einstein's picture but I hate it as that guy is just the most overrated scam of all science's history to me.)

All that being said I wish you all well from here on, I'll leave you alone in this part of the forum as I'm just wasting my time tilting and engaging in senseless debates (I can't help it, it's one of my leaks).
Gl hf everyone ! Keep playing poker it's such a cool game but don't let it make you crazy ! ♠_drink:

@MyFloXyBabY: I have my info from Snowie's Preflop Advisor. https://www.pokersnowie.com/preflop-advisor.html
Start Preflop Advisor -> Facing a 3 bet after my raise -> 1 [for UTG] -> 3 [for BTN]
It says 4 bet AQ 6% of the time fold it 94% of the time.

I really like Snowies pre flop ranges. You can find a lot of important concepts. E.G. If you defend vs Steal in the SB you raise your range. If you defend vs a resteal, you do not 4bet a lot, because you want to call so many hands.
I think Snowie is a great concept in general. Its main problem is that by definition it will never win money but only be break even.

Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY
...
@Yohan : ... you clearly doesn't understand a damn thing about GTO ...

(Erased some insults)

Should I not have answered to the effect that I know what GTO is?

Also, my mention of Nash and his papers (which I can provide) was a perfectly honest offer, not only to you, but to anyone interested. You'd be surprised. There are poker players around here able to read them. Why wouldn't a player with some math background not be interested (since PS is full of GTO talk)?

T b h, I didn't read (but parsed quickly) the rest of your reply to my reply. Seemed to be a bit unbalanced.

My suggestion is still for you to calm down (or grow up or whatever).

I'll be mad at you for at least one hour (max two). Then I hope we can get along. Til then, Cheers:f_drink:

easy fold PF IMHO. If you really want to fight with this, 4bet/push and pray for something like JJ/QQ. Never call a 3bet with AQ OOP, what are you expecting to see (even Q/A high boards can be really dangerous) ? Of course, you can win a few blinds when villain is bluffing, but when you got action you will be *always* WAY behind.

Yes.

I agree with 4-bet or fold preflop, but calling pre is IMO only a small mistake. Preflop is as usual relatively unimportant provided you can play your cards well postflop. This is why it is pretty irrelevant what Snowie, Janda, and Janda's uncle does with AQ.

It is calling pre, calling flop, calling turn and calling river that is truly horrible (as already OP noted).

One should adapt ones game according to circumstances. And circumstances include ones own ability. Small own postflop leaks (such are expensive) and a call is out of the question. Then 4-bet bluff or fold. Big own postflop leaks (such are very expensive) and a normal 4-bet bluff is out of the question. Only AI or fold remains. (You'd really need to know your'e up against a maniac to go AI risking 97 bb to win 14.5.)

Some useful math: When calling, you are really looking at implied odds. If you think you have decent odds to call a 3x 3-bet, then that would give you 90:6 in MAX implied odds. In the actual hand, the 3-bet is slightly bigger. You get MAX 89:7 for a call. Does it matter? Yes, it does since your MAX implied odds have gone down by 15%, not an insignificant number, and if it were close to begin with with a 3x 3-bet, the proposition is now dead. You can really call only if it is an extraordinarily weak player raising you.

Some wouldn't agree this matters nada, but if you, like MyFloXyBabY plan to tough it out versus a LAG-tard with any kind of hit, then a 15% loss of implied odds counts.

Hello guys
Just wanted to chip in as I'm browsing the forum to best choose topics for my next coaching series and this thread seems fun

So here we open on the UTG to 3bb, and get 3bet to 10big blinds by the CO.
I've already heard the Snowie mentioned, and I think it's pretty cool to actually look at the ranges here.

So this is what Snowie defends with, at the lowest stakes it provides. At NL5 it in fact would be even very slightly tighter as the rake is higher

This is what equity of AQo looks like:

In other words you'd lose 64BB/100 if defending a hand like this

And I think the cool thing to look at is the difference with equity with garbage suited hands like 36s in this situatiation

What's happening here huh? 1/3 More EV? 36 Better hand than AQ? YOU MAD BRO?

Well it makes very much sense when you look at what Snowie wants to 3bet in CO's situation

What's important here is relative hand strenght in terms of what can happen postflop, what is your opponent's likely range and what your own looks like and with AQo you will not have many draws you can continue and beat your opponent with, your top pair is frequenctly dominated with limited options to pot control oop. AND it will be insanely difficult to get value if you hit your hand as your own range looks very strong when you raise UTG and flat a CO 3bet, Suited hands even with crappy pair potential are suddenly doing better - that's why even suited garbage will play better than AQo in this situation according to Snowie.

When you are facing a cutoff range that is betting against your under the gun you can expect a lot of strong hands. In practice even against 13% 3bet over a small sample you can't really know that he attacks UTG that wide, and there is no chance you will have anywhere near a semi-reliable sample for 3bet IP vs UTG, vast majority of players will have high 3bet% against your steals if they do get out of line a lot at first. But even when you do decide to play back wider regardless, you should always start of with your suited hands that play a lot better and if you check snowie have all way better equity against that 3bet than AQo. It's a very subtle way of looking at relative hand strenght and I will for sure be looking at this in the series

As for the 4bet option well, only if your opponent 5bet/folds against 4bets then it's very good because of the blocker effect. If he has a reasonable flatting range AQo even with the blockers becomes a meh candidate as does even worse vs 4bet call range than it does when it does call a 3bet.

Damned, you know you're really done when even Davy Crocket (aka the Mad Hater) is arguing against you
I thereby admit utter defeat and assume the consequences by quitting poker (for at least half a day).

Originally posted by LemOn36
...
In other words you'd lose 64BB/100 if defending a hand like this
...

@LemOn36 or anyone who knows...
How does Snowie calculate that number?

If it calculates it by playing it out a million times against itself, it is an optimistic number to adopt for a human. I base that on the (unproved) assumption that humans make proportionally more mistakes OOP than bots.

If it calculates by simply doing a rundown equity calculation versus an assumed range, it is just downright stupid to adopt it (for anyone, human or not). Three rounds of betting OOP remains. The realizable part of rundown equity (the type of equity Equilab provides) is well below 100% OOP.

I believe firmer and firmer that preflop ranges is the last topic to study, not the first, to become good at poker. Well, knowing that AA is better than 72o helps, and that IP is better than OOP preflop is also nice to know, but most else can wait until microstakes graduation. Just play the cards you are comfortable with, and put in the brain power after the flop.

Thanks a lot for all the answers ! this is more than I was expecting I will definitely give a try to snowie pre flop advice when I play, like that when I have spot that I am unsure I ll check out the advice.

fold pre or 4 bet bluff