Win A Seat in My Seminar!

58/40. Perhaps this guy is just next-level good aggressive Cole style. He probably isn't.

58% is very loose, but it's not 100%. He has a folding range and hence some sort of criteria for hand selection. We don't know for certain that this is influenced by table position but likely his VPIP is less than 58% from the CO vs an UTG+1 open.
We are given no direct information about his 3betting tendencies.Given the nature of 10/20 games I'd infer our villain is 3betting a decent amount to achieve a PFR of 40%, otherwise the game would have to be very passive for him to open-raise so much. We can tighten up his cold-calling range somewhat as a result.

If I think he's bad I'd tend to weight his 3betting range towards depolarized value (even though it might be theoretically flawed to 3bet hands like AJo and KQo for value vs certain MP opens.) If I think he's a little better, just ultra aggressive, he's going to be a lot more polarized when he 3bets. I'd assume he's depolarized more often; the general description of him seems to suggest aggressive and spewy. I'd remove a decent amount of value combinations from his flatting range and keep in a wider amount of the speculative hands a decent player might use to bluff with T7s etc.

If he is playing ~60% of hands and raising 40% his ratio of raises : calls is 2:1. I expect him to have a much lower ratio of calls:raises in this particular spot since he is facing an open raise, perhaps 1:3 (raises : calls). With an adjusted VPIP of 40% (reduced because of position), he'd be cold-calling an estimated 30% range here. Bottom-heavy as discussed, maybe it looks like this.



How does that range connect with a 6 4 7? Given my estimations of villain's pf ranges he hits this board harder than other players might. He still has a bunch of junk though. Let's assume he's not potting junk, but anything with equity.(A pair, a flushdoor, an open-ender, or a combo gutshot). We are left with this, (all suited cards without a pair/draw only have the 1 combination of clubs left etc).




We know he is going to barrel the turn and probably river really wide, so let's run a stove.





We have 52% equity on the flop. We are flipping but can call because of money in the pot. He is not necessarily barrelling turn with a 100% frequency, but we are going to have odds to call any turn/river assuming he's barrelling very wide. Vs pot size bets we obviously need 33% equity for a break-even call. It may be in reality villain is not barrelling wide enough for us to call all turns/rivers but it's difficult to make concrete estimates given the limited sample size and information. Calling down is going to allow you to make more informed decisions vs this player in the future, even if it is thin and/or a short-term mistake.

I don't think raising at any point makes sense unless we spike a 5. Partly as a result of having a hand that is clearly strong enough to bluff catch vs his wide-range, but also because it's difficult to say what raising flop or turn would achieve given our level of info. Against his range it'd feel like a merge seeing as he might fold better but call with worse. Raising is certainly not out of the question; raising the turn could potentially be very strong. It could also be pretty awful. It's difficult to say without further info.

If he checks river there is rarely any value given turn/river likely to bring overs and/or complete flushes - but on very specific rivers a small value bet might be possible given the amount of lower pairs and pair+gutshot stuff in his range.

Also notice the flop SPR - around 13. This usually sets up great opportunities to bluff villain if he doesn't fire the river. On certain bad rivers it might be better to turn medium value hand into a bluff. (It really depends on which range you think he is NOT 3barrelling). This perhaps is less important given so far our villain is firing every river, but it is interesting to note nonetheless.

Just as a final note, this is clearly a high variance spot. Given the dramatic implied odds you potentially have against this aggressive player it wouldn't be terrible to wait for a spot where you flop the type of hand that really benefits. Theoretically we can call down 3 streets here, but we have a hand that suffers from reverse implieds in a spot where the stacks are set up nicely for our opponent to triple barrel. Unless I strongly felt taking such small edges was necessarily to beat the game, I'd consider folding the flop. There is still the original open-raiser left to act remember. Turn and river will often be bad for our hand, and opponent is probably going to 3barrel. I don't play 10/20, so if you tell me taking small edges like this is necessary, I'll take your word for it. From the limited info you've given about villain he seems like a huge but rich fish. I've got no problems about flopping a little stronger before I call off my entire stack.

With this guy I'm picking a better spot, and folding pre. With those stats, we will have much better chances later, and many of them, since we will ALWAYS have position on him except for the 1 hand per orbit he has the button. He is ideally placed for us to 3Bet the night away.

Why waste $ on a "needsaflop" hand?

It is only 3BB though, and if we do decide to "see a flop", I would want a better flop than this to chuck out 10.5 bb.