1st Nl10 AJ zoom

Hey SmallestShark,

Preflop squeeze is too large imo. You can achieve the same result with $1.10 here.

Flop play depends on SB. Generally donk multi-way will be very strong here especially since you squeezed so large preflop. Probably 55/22/A5/A2, your fold is fine at these limits.

Hey guys,

What's the reason for making it 11bb here when squeezing?

My default sizing when 3betting out of position is 10-11bb, dependent on stack size, and I will usually make it 13 against two players, so it would seem weird to me to make it the same sizing when there's another caller involved.

If it's because making it 11 does the same as 13/14, I don't think I agree. Players will see they're getting a decent price to call, so this will generally widen their calling range a bit. Considering we're out of position, that's not really desirable.

Originally posted by TinoLaan
Players will see they're getting a decent price to call, so this will generally widen their calling range a bit. Considering we're out of position, that's not really desirable.

So are we bluffing with AJo?

Perhaps, perhaps not. AJo is one of those hands that can either be a 3bet as a bluff or for thin value imo. Depends a bit on the villain(s) as well of course.

Against two fishy looking guys (as in this hand), it's probably more for value than as a bluff.

Originally posted by TinoLaan
Perhaps, perhaps not. AJo is one of those hands that can either be a 3bet as a bluff or for thin value imo. Depends a bit on the villain(s) as well of course.

Against two fishy looking guys (as in this hand), it's probably more for value than as a bluff.

In this particular case I think it's favourable for us to keep the pot smaller. As a really general principle ---> no need to bloat the pot preflop vs fish. It's good to keep the SPR higher postflop allowing us to capitalize on our skill edge more.

Plus I actually think it's good if either player continues with a wider range. If either players range tightens too much we can find ourselves playing against a range that dominates us. (I'm not convinced this is compensated for by the fact we have a slightly higher expectation due to our preflop fold-equity). This is especially relevant when holding a hand like AJo as opposed to something like 67s.

I guess there is no huge issue with $1.40 if that's what you prefer. Personally I make it $1.10 and feel it is slightly stronger. Btw, my standard sizing vs 1 guy is $0.80-$1, and vs 2 guys $1-$1.20, so I'm still using a larger sizing.

What you're saying certainly makes sense, and I'm not saying I disagree.

However I agree more with your analysis when 3betting in position as opposed to out of position. When 3betting in position I like making my 3bets smaller as it allows my to keep their range wider, but still play in a bigger pot, in position and with initiative.

I guess the same does apply as well when playing out of position, especially when we have a clear skill advantage against our opponents. Let's say we'd now have 2 at least semi-competent regs in this same situation though. Would that change the way we think about this spot?

Originally posted by TinoLaan
I guess the same does apply as well when playing out of position, especially when we have a clear skill advantage against our opponents. Let's say we'd now have 2 at least semi-competent regs in this same situation though. Would that change the way we think about this spot?

I think part of the issue is the type of hand we are holding. Probably you'd agree there is no real need to be balanced at these stakes? So we wouldn't necessarily have to make our sizing with AJo a specific amount just because we want to use that sizing with other hands in our range.

If we are holding 67s then I have way less issue with a larger sizing. It's not as if we suddenly have an equity disadvantage with a larger sizing, since we already expect to have an equity disadvantage when we hold 7-high anyway. We potentially increase our preflop fold-equity with the larger sizing and still avoid domination issues because it's not as if there are going to be a ton of better 6's and 7's in our opponents calling range.

A hand like AJo is a lot more sensitive to sizing. Our opponents calling range could tighten to the point where we are facing way more JJ+ and AQ+. Not an issue with the 67s, but can be problematic with the AJo.

The preflop play in itself will clearly be +EV, but as the preflop sizing increases the postflop playability of the hand decreases. This issue arises because as you say, AJ is slightly too strong to be a bluff, but if we are not careful with our sizing it can become too weak to be a value raise. 67s is clearly a bluff, while AA is clearly a value raise. Flatting preflop and playing multiway vs fish is totally fine imo.

In general though, I agree with your comments about making it larger OOP. I also know that some decent players still squeeze to $1.40 with this hand - and a few years back large squeezes were totally standard. We are basically discussing a minor adjustment here; it's just my personal opinion that $1.10 is a slightly stronger sizing preflop. That's one way the games are evolving, preflop sizes are getting smaller all the time.

Your points make a lot of sense actually, and this is something I'll definitely be giving some more thought to. Thanks

One thing I'd like to still touch on though:

Probably you'd agree there is no real need to be balanced at these stakes?

Agreed, but only to a certain extent. Balance is overrated by a fair number of players at these limits, but at the same time I don't think it should be completely underrated either.

For example, against a fish/bad reg I don't really care about my sizing. I just make it large with my value hands and probably won't bluff much against him. If I do, I'll just make it smaller to give me a better price. And I'll probably expand my value range a fair bit.

Against somewhat more competent regulars though, who might read something into bet sizing, I do like to keep my 3bet sizes more "standard", I guess. Because though they're likely not going to be the most awesome players in the world, it'll still be pretty obvious to them if I raise larger for value than as a bluff imo.

But maybe I'm overrating the NL10/NL25 regs here? (because most of them are really just exchanging rake with eachother, so most of them aren't exactly good or anything)

But yeah, in 90% of the cases I agree, there's not really a need to be balanced.

Imo bet-sizing tells are one of the most under-used ways of exploiting opponents. Aside from the obvious things like "he bets pot he has it", guys just don't pay enough attention to previous action.

Many players claim to use bet-sizing info, but I would estimate that less than 5% of players make effective use of it based on concrete history. Most of the time I hear things like "he bets small, he probably doesn't have it", but it's based on no historical evidence whatsoever. Some guys will just bet really small when they are strong, so unless you are also considering the players history it basically amounts to guesswork.

Of course against some guys you will want to balance. And generally I stick to small sizings, rarely going above 12bb with a squeeze vs 2 players. I get a better price on my bluffs this way + force a theoretically optimum player to defend a wider range (or lose money vs my bluffs). I also leave a higher SPR postflop so I can capitalize on skill advantage (although admittedly this is of less benefit OOP if your opponent is also skilled).

I actually think you may be spot on there, that people don't really read much into bet sizing. They'll just think that small bets are always weak and that big bets are always strong (or the other way around sometimes), etc. Or they'll see a small bet/raise and just call because they're "getting good odds" and think no further than that.

I think that's also one of the reasons you can often make small bets for thin value on the river often against these types of "thinking" players, or still extra value from a weak range when you have the nuts. They'll just see it as weakness and call you with all kinds of weak hands.

So yeah, what you're saying makes sense. Leaving a better SPR even when out of position is something I never even really thought about. So this is something I'll be playing around with for a bit.

Thanks for the discussion

Thank you as well, was interesting for sure