QTJ7ss

Opponent's range is AAxx. Put that to equity calculator and see what is your average equity. If it's more than required, you should call. Equity calculator takes into account the times you are dominated and the times you are not.

Yep, it's a call. 36% eq. Could you also comment on pre? Tx

Pre is fine, 3bet is better than call if you want to play the hand.

Whaat? Pre is fine?

Really surprised that you think so. We shouldn't be 3beting with this hand, make it QJT9ss and its still not a 3bet, we should prefer to call with these hands. In reality we dont 3bet single-suited combos all that often at all. Thinking that we can 3bet more just because we are on the BTN is outdated, vs solid CO opening range BTN should be 3beting ~7.5% and coldcalling ~17.5% (100bb scenario), if you start adding too many single-suited hands into your 3beting range your frequencies will quickly go through the roof and will get punished by well composed 4beting range (that doesnt include only AAxx). When playing IP we want to have as big of an SPR as possible, that way we can take advantage of position forcing OOP player to play 3 street game where hes supposed to do a lot of checking on majority of boards, having hard time to realize his equity and having to act first on all the texture shifts, but when we 3bet we take that advantage away + open ourselves to getting 4bet, having to call and playing a 4bet pot with SPR <1 where we are dominated a ton or having to stackoff where we are behind just because we get the odds.

Originally posted by benaars
Whaat? Pre is fine?

Really surprised that you think so. We shouldn't be 3beting with this hand, make it QJT9ss and its still not a 3bet, we should prefer to call with these hands. In reality we dont 3bet single-suited combos all that often at all. Thinking that we can 3bet more just because we are on the BTN is outdated, vs solid CO opening range BTN should be 3beting ~7.5% and coldcalling ~17.5% (100bb scenario), if you start adding too many single-suited hands into your 3beting range your frequencies will quickly go through the roof and will get punished by well composed 4beting range (that doesnt include only AAxx). When playing IP we want to have as big of an SPR as possible, that way we can take advantage of position forcing OOP player to play 3 street game where hes supposed to do a lot of checking on majority of boards, having hard time to realize his equity and having to act first on all the texture shifts, but when we 3bet we take that advantage away + open ourselves to getting 4bet, having to call and playing a 4bet pot with SPR <1 where we are dominated a ton or having to stackoff where we are behind just because we get the odds.

All good points, benaars. I agree that we can "protect" our button in 2 ways, by calling or 3betting. For clarity do you think this combo is a call or a fold (if you don't believe we can 3bet it)? Reason I ask is that we are fistpumping to raise this first in from BU. So once CO steals (and assuming he steals alot, such as this guy) if we can't flat it then we lose the opportunity to play 24% hand from BU.

Thanks

CO is loose, and SB is aggro. And we have a hand that plays much better in HU pot than multiway. I would much rather play HU against CO than make it 3-4way with that hand.

The numbers you give are from solver, and it assumes opponent plays perfectly. And there is some debates if solver strategies are actually optimal or not, as it's not GTO. Instead of following what solver says, I would take into consideration that CO doesn't play as solver says, he is looser. And we have a hand that plays better in HU pots. And with this hand we don't necessarily want to get the SB into the pot in multiway pot. Reason is that our hand doesn't make that many hands on the flop where we are happy to stack off with higher SPR (SB is aggro, so he probably attacks a lot of postflop situations).

According to solver 100bb solution this is a fold against solver CO RFI range.

We have a lot of hands that play better HU than multiway and that alone cannot be used as an argument to start 3beting everything IMO. Sure you can argue and come up with reasons for 3beting, but I dont that doesn't mean its the standard play. I dont really want to go into "those" discussions, just saying my opinion, it doesnt mean its the 100% correct one, at the end of the day everyone plays how they believe its correct, and I believe its better to follow what solver suggests.

And about the hand, not sure what rake structure are you using in your simulations, but with the 5% rake vs CO who's opening ~30% its always a call with Qhigh suit exactly two suits, and folded with Jx and lower. I wanted to add that the hands in this category (QJT7, QJT6, QJT5, QT97, KQT6:(xxyz); KJT7, KT97, KJT8:(xxxy) are valued very low/marginal in monkersolver. Meaning these can be the hands you can tighten up a little bit. Given that the solver play less multiway scenarios and plays a perfect postflop strategy for us humans these marginals will be more difficult to play profitably.

I am a mortal with normal laptop, so I am using Jnandez november 2017 ranges. As far as I know it uses PLO500z rake.

I suppose its the same chart you were looking it up (I mean the category and CC% BTNvCO) If it is then its weird because it is a call.

It could also be that you were taking top 20% from this range it PPT rankings in which case it would be different because hands are not picked linearly.

Yeah, I don't have the solver to check it, so I have just taken the top 20% of that category. Someone with solver could check what the numbers are for that hand, I would quess it's sometimes call and more often a fold.

I am using those ranges in Oracle, and for that I need to have exact ranges (can't have a hand that is sometimes a call and sometimes a fold). As far as I am concerned, it's close enough.