Top-pair + GS in a 3-way 3BP

I used Equilab Omaha to run this.

Assuming I have the ranges correct (always doubtful) it looks like this:

Board: 3♦T♥6♦
              Equity    Wins    Ties
MP2: Preflop  27.08%  26.74%   0.34% { 8hJsTs7d }
        Flop  29.64%  29.39%   0.25%
        Turn  29.64%  29.39%   0.25%
       River  29.64%  29.39%   0.25%
SB:  Preflop  47.09%  46.91%   0.18% { AA2-K2-K/ds }
        Flop  46.17%  46.02%   0.15%
        Turn  46.17%  46.02%   0.15%
       River  46.17%  46.02%   0.15%
BB:  Preflop  25.83%  25.61%   0.21% { QQ2-K2-K/ds }
        Flop  24.19%  24.03%   0.16%
        Turn  24.19%  24.03%   0.16%
       River  24.19%  24.03%   0.16%

I think I swapped BB and SB, but it remains that you have a very close call.

In before experts answer and make me look like the Omaha noob I am

VS

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
   { AA2-K2-K/ds }
         { QQ2-K2-K/ds }
    ...

In before experts answer and make me look like the Omaha noob I am

haha.

but I dont understand the ranges you´ve put in for villains.

The thing is the BB´s call indicates some real strength here since he is aware I am still left to act and his calling range should be kinda strong.

do you mean he is super strong OTF? because preflop coldcall 3bet range IMO clearly is not. I always thought about doing an individual macro for PJ for those coldcallers, what do you think people coldcall here? I feel like its mainly doublepairs, doublesuited very good looking hands like ABBB or perfect rundowns that hope they can GII vs 2x Aces.

PJ flop broke ranges:
SB: $3b4o: T+,dd,542+
BB: $FI15!AA: T+,dd,542+

results in 28% equity which is more than I expected tbh. btw GTO this is a fold preflop. I guess it is because of the super low gto coldcalling frequency of bu but even if SB squeezes and BB folds and its our turn we call this one gapped singlesuited mid rd 18,9% of the time with -2,79bb equity

Originally posted by efkay

The thing is the BB´s call indicates some real strength here since he is aware I am still left to act and his calling range should be kinda strong.

do you mean he is super strong OTF? because preflop coldcall 3bet range IMO clearly is not. I always thought about doing an individual macro for PJ for those coldcallers, what do you think people coldcall here?

Flatcall pre like 90% of their already loose opening-range. But the flop-call, idk it varies a lot from player to player. Some regs´d have the range u assigned, but some may fold weaker flushdraws or bad top-pairs.

Folding pre is kinda surprising.. but not playin GTO here anyways.

GTO should be the standard line and we should adjust our play when we can exploit other players and increase the EV.

now I can see that GTO might fold because the BB has very little coldcalling frequency but do you think a J high rundowndominates that well multiway? for me J high rundowns are borderline when it comes to domination. I prefer J high rundowns HU.

dont get me wrong: i would also have called ingame but currently its interesting what monker does vs squeeze and makes me rethink about my game. i will look tmrw further on how monker plays when no BB coldcalling or we have gapless or K/Q rundowns

Originally posted by efkay
GTO should be the standard line and we should adjust our play when we can exploit other players and increase the EV.

It should be possible to somehow exploit a 60/40 maniac. Certainly not taking standard lines or GTO plays against very bad players and exploitative adjustements in general start preflop.

i agree but you dont get my point: i.e. do you call 6532s in this spot?

Originally posted by efkay
i agree but you dont get my point: i.e. do you call 6532s in this spot?

no. but JT87ss is much better than 6532ss.

Warning: Wall of Text down here.

I think you are doing a mistake by looking at the flop-equity distribution against 3 players isolated:

1. CO might wake up with some aces here and there and others wont fold then you end up GII preflop multiway

2. Its ture you have wonderful equity distribution when it comes to the flop. But that doesnt mean every time other players will broke postflop multiway when you hit good

so yes, you have excellent flop-equity distribution but that doesnt automatically mean call preflop is +EV. dont forget that when you look at that calculation method the original way (4bet pot vs most likely aces) you assume it gets in 100% of times OTF.

It is counter-productive to isolate the action of a hand by its EV of a single street and say "yes this hand is GTO raise/call/.. or it is not", since the EV of an action is wired to the EV of other streets and how we plan to play those in regard of the anticipated ranges involved, keywords exploitation and table dynamics.

I agree. just can tell that most likely if you come to the flop at low spr level your room for creating an edge becomes very thin since there is not much left to do beesides GII or fold.

so my question is still: where do you think the EV other streets is coming from when table dynamics or reads dont have impact anymore when it comes to the low level spr flop situation?

since it will be ultrahard to do an accurate calculation a glimp to GTO lines might be the smarter effective way to improve. I would prefer a large samplesize of played hands in a pool to know wether calling is >GTO or not

Originally posted by efkay
I think you are doing a mistake by looking at the flop-equity distribution against 3 players isolated:

1. CO might wake up with some aces here and there and others wont fold then you end up GII preflop multiway

often AAxx vs AAxx/KKxx where we end up being favourite with a non-dominated hand. fantastic!

2. Its ture you have wonderful equity distribution when it comes to the flop. But that doesnt mean every time other players will broke postflop multiway when you hit good

I dont understand what you mean with "hit good"? Top-pair is not that good. we don´t need to hit good in general, that´s what smooth equity distribution is about. and we also dont have to since it´s a low spr 3-bet pot. If they dont go broke otf this is even better since they won´t realize their equity.

so yes, you have excellent flop-equity distribution but that doesnt automatically mean call preflop is +EV. dont forget that when you look at that calculation method the original way (4bet pot vs most likely aces) you assume it gets in 100% of times OTF.

but it means that our play is more likely to be +EV depending on the accurarcy of villains perceived ranges and tendencies otf. the EV of the preflop call depends on Equity distributions at the first place. anyways, he should stack-off AAxx on this board with 100% anything else would be quite ridiculous at SPR1.

so my question is still: where do you think the EV other streets is coming from when table dynamics or reads dont have impact anymore when it comes to the low level spr flop situation?

from the dead-money in the pot. On the flop as I already said it is quite marginal but against solid players it´s rather a fold I´d say against a shove/call.

since it will be ultrahard to do an accurate calculation a glimp to GTO lines might be the smarter effective way to improve. I would prefer a large samplesize of played hands in a pool to know wether calling is >GTO or not

yes comparing our plays with GTO surely benefits our game. I recognized Jnandez recommended in his vids to search single hands from your data-base and check out if it is GTO. but without range awareness (which we probably both dont have in a satisfying manner) it´s a shot in the dark. why? because in a hand there will always be a context relation either to the table environment or to the exploitative strategy we are applying. there should be, it is the information we gather to gain the edge. I am not sure but JT87ss is very marginal, afaik solver is calling hands just one card higher like QJ98ss. Comparing every single hand played out with the MM GTO-Bot is kinda without central thread, you don´t know why you actually played that hand, you have no plan how to proceed, if you are balanced and what you are doing with specific parts of your range, without strategical framework you have no idea how your ranges alter if you leave out certain hand-combos and after some thousands hands you won´t remember if you called such a hand in a similar spot. You basically have no clue what frequencies you are making certain plays and how your range composition looks like. There are so many different starting-hands and positional setups that you´ll go in circles.

I think it makes more sense to first build the 3-bet-flatting and 4-bet ranges of our gameplan founded on GTO, investigate the boarder of "swing"-hands by their structure and then look for exploitation at the empirical approach by calculating EV of hands and create exploitative betting patterns including hands/plays that fit our individual puposes/opponent profile. If we are already aware of our own strategy, why and how we exploit, finally we can compare single hands, filter them and compare the EV and villain´s ranges at showdown to continue adapting further.

I think it makes more sense to first build the 3-bet-flatting and 4-bet ranges of our gameplan founded on GTO, investigate the boarder of "swing"-hands by their structure and then look for exploitation at the empirical approach by calculating EV of hands and create exploitative betting patterns including hands/plays that fit our individual puposes/opponent profile.

thats the way. I just dont see how you want to exploit your opponents here by calling because of ‚all the dead money‘.

you need to exploit your opponents here enough to make up the difference in equity that makes the solver fold. i dont see the exploitation possibilitys in this spot to make it up.

calling because of the dead money in the pot is not enough as the hand continues. if it would be a pure oddscall solvers would make the right decision by trying out. and exploiting postflop by adjusting calling range at spr1 is pretty wild and doesnt always work as you proofed yourself with this hand.

I call this hand preflop rather than 6532 because if i flop good (meaning good enough to stack of postflop obv) i think i dominate other wraps that call preflop mainly. HU vs aces is one calculation, 3-4 way its another. It just seems like on average its not dominating enough: it will run into better straightdraws, flushdraws, better pairs with kickers, overpairs multiway. exploiting by folding postflop wont make that difference imo

Originally posted by efkay
thats the way. I just dont see how you want to exploit your opponents here by calling because of ‚all the dead money‘.

You are confusing different concepts. The dead money makes, that the call preflop becomes +EV since we get better odds to call. The exploitation itself happens on the flop, where we play better than our opponents. We cannot exploit villains´Flop tendencies if we are already folding preflop. EV(fold) is zero whereas the EV(call) pre might become positive in a multi-street EV-calc considering both EV´s of pre and flop play. Mathematically said: EV(call)+ΣEV(flop) > EV(fold)

calling because of the dead money in the pot is not enough as the hand continues. if it would be a pure oddscall solvers would make the right decision by trying out. and exploiting postflop by adjusting calling range at spr1 is pretty wild and doesnt always work as you proofed yourself with this hand.

It´s not pretty wild. It´s pretty standard. im getting juicy odds preflop to see a flop. preflop it´s not necessary to be 60/40 or 40/30/30 fav when there are still chips and further streets in play. The fold I made otf is exploitative, because BB´s calling range is too strong which won´t be always the case. if my assumption is correct, folding the flop was a succesful exploitative adjustement which might be better than folding pre because the EV composes of all possible scenarios beside shove/call on all possible boards: We will not get the T♥:6♦:3♦: flop with 100%.. there are other flops possible too. That´s why we look at flop equity-distributions. And villains will not both shove+call with 100% neither. And finally we dont need to be ahead of his range in an allin, we just need sufficient equity (>23% in this instance) to make it overall +EV.

I call this hand preflop rather than 6532 because if i flop good (meaning good enough to stack of postflop obv) i think i dominate other wraps that call preflop mainly. HU vs aces is one calculation, 3-4 way its another. It just seems like on average its not dominating enough: it will run into better straightdraws, flushdraws, better pairs with kickers, overpairs multiway. exploiting by folding postflop wont make that difference imo

you also do better in multiway pots playing higher rundowns than the lower ones. that statement of mine was not refered to HU. there is no benefit at all favouring 6532ss over JT87ss, especially not when SPR becomes shallow. Assigning a 60/40 a 3-betting range of AAxx is pretty much nonsense , he can have stuff like AQJ8ss, AA is like 2.6% of hands where as he 3-bet% is probably sth like >15%. Even if he has primarily AAxx your comment is nonsense: First you say he has AAxx so he´s gonna rumble and shove all the time, and just afterwards as a second you say that I´ll get dominated by his hand-components like flush-suits and higher straight-draws. Isn´t this a contradiction? The average AAxx has 1.15 suits and will hit a flushdraw at 11.75%. At SPR 1 you dont get dominated by better straightdraws, flushdraws etc..) because villain has none. The likelihood of hitting a flushdraw in general with a suited hand is at 15%-25%. So the majority of the time (75%-85%) he has no flushdraw. Straightdraws are even less likely since the majority of hands in his range will not consist of 4-card rundowns. We are primarily "dominated" by overpairs, where we usually have 40%+.

dude, you made a PRETTY WILD exploitative fold OTF while your assumed reg made a pretty standard spr1 decision ending up in denying your equity. IMO you wont play better than GTO by exploiting players when there is no room for it on flop.

Originally posted by efkay
dude, you made a PRETTY WILD exploitative fold OTF while your assumed reg made a pretty standard spr1 decision ending up in denying your equity. IMO you wont play better than GTO by exploiting players when there is no room for it on flop.

As soon as someone deviates from GTO (60/40 obv aint GTO freq´s), you can ALWAYS do better than GTO. You have to, it´s called exploitation and that´s how to win more money basically.

Solver ain´t capitalizing 100% of its Equity neither. You go for max-EV decisions, not for a max-optimum balanced play.

Or in words, SB shoves with any piece, bottom pair, gutshot, fd etc. BB overcalls with top/mid-pair or better, fd's and some straight draws. CO always folds.

Taking into account rake, and one player left to act it looks like you made a good fold. NH.

Interesting discussion. I would just point out that when efkay says "GTO should be our standard line" that it's a bit more complicated than that.

Remember, solver only calculates the strategy with set parameters. If you change rake, stacks or opponent frequencies, the outcome changes. So to say "GTO folds preflop" it is true with certain parameters. But if we change stacks, the outcome might change. Or if we change the rake structure. For most sold preflop strategies (Matrix, Mastermind) the parameters are PLO50 at Stars, without rakeback. If you get 50% rakeback, the GTO strategy changes.

Once we get the solver strategy with the parameters from our own environment (network/site), we should also consider the average opponent. And adjust the solver strategy accordingly, to get our standard strategy.

Extreme example: You play in a closed network, where average opponent is 100/2/0. Would your default strategy be normal solver strategy?

Of course not.

Another example: on flop strategies solver assumes that opponents have perfect leading range by default. If we play in an environment where opponents lead significantly less (perhaps not at all on default), should we follow a solver solution against perfect leading range or solver solution against lower leading range (or no leading range at all)?

I have compared with solver how removing leading range affects our flop strategy. I have also compared how opponents not folding to 3bets affects our 3betting range. And all those sims are "GTO strategies".

So just to say "GTO says this is a fold" might or might not be true. We could even have a situation where GTO says it is a fold, AND it says it is a call.