I'm assuming he calls 100% cause regs generally don't open smaller than 20 BB stacks utg to fold to a reshove cause it's mathematically bad almost always
yes i agree...but what are we doing the math with...stove? we can put it in nash and get a full calculation.....inputing whatever ranges we want for villains...and we can play with over calling ranges behind us....and get a proper calculation.....
now that proper calculation is somewhat the best math model we can come up with but it needs to be adjusted for some things...the adjustment will show that aqo is certainly a jam.....the reasoning is literally because btp says so....
be what upsets (not really) is that we don't all use nash for this....???
what this tells me is that if AQo is the absolute bottom of our nash calling range and I percieve villains range to be nutted due to my betsizing read I'm not putting this in
what this tells me is that if AQo is the absolute bottom of our nash calling range and I percieve villains range to be nutted due to my betsizing read I'm not putting this in
ok but this whole discussion started with this assumption...because we don't need to post the link..i can just tell you....mathematically vs a competent range we get it in...vs this villain its a 'mathematical' fold....
these aren't up for debate they are the premise for the question....assuming 'A' can we do this....
but just as an aside....a mathematical fold...is a shove if the best players say so....meaning most likely....the math is wrong...
I mean that we play 100 games a day together... so if we both play std. tag then no one is gaining vs. each other....
Right, but does that mean you play your 5BB stack any different? Not really. 15BB is much chips and you can't really do much in the way of exploiting other than shoving correctly and hoping he makes mistakes.
yes, I think about it from villains perspective and after doing that I don't have reason enough to think he's metagaming the table to the point where he's doing this with 33 to look strong
yes, I think about it from villains perspective and after doing that I don't have reason enough to think he's metagaming the table to the point where he's doing this with 33 to look strong
I think you might be giving him too much credit. Maybe he just 3x's everything and he's not thinking about why. Why do you assume he's at all good?
Just because he plays a lot doesn't mean he's good. The fast that he's 3x'ing with that stack indicates he's clearly not good.
very true, but the fact that he's a regular probably means he's a thinking player so I think there's a reason in his mind for 3xing, and I don't think it is cause he wants to loosen up
Edit: and yes that is a big assumption but it's how my limited experience is telling me to read it
very true, but the fact that he's a regular probably means he's a thinking player so I think there's a reason in his mind for 3xing, and I don't think it is cause he wants to loosen up
Edit: and yes that is a big assumption but it's how my limited experience is telling me to read it
Right, I think at higher stakes that might apply because you can assume reg + higher stakes = somewhat winning/thinking/competent. At these stakes I think there are tons of regs with huge leaks and might be putting some thought into hands but maybe not that much overall. I think by virtue of him 3x'ing in a spot where he should never be 3x'ing, he's probably not thinking that much. I would generally subscribe to jamming in this spot and seeing what he shows up with and taking notes rather folding since we can't conclusively say what he's doing with the 3x, and it's good to find out this stuff early when it's someone you play a bunch.
Right, I think at higher stakes that might apply because you can assume reg + higher stakes = somewhat winning/thinking/competent. At these stakes I think there are tons of regs with huge leaks and might be putting some thought into hands but maybe not that much overall. I think by virtue of him 3x'ing in a spot where he should never be 3x'ing, he's probably not thinking that much. I would generally subscribe to jamming in this spot and seeing what he shows up with and taking notes rather folding since we can't conclusively say what he's doing with the 3x, and it's good to find out this stuff early when it's someone you play a bunch.
but when we analyzed this spot with did it with the assumptions i gave right? you guys are talking about something other than this situation?
haha i hate Internet....someone tell me that we agree in this spot for this thread villain is nutted 95%+ of the time....cause if we don't agree for this thread then we have a giant miscommunication ....:-\
we are talking about something else than you started the thread with but it's pretty interesting.
I definitely agree with vekked that if we play with this guy more than once we should put it in to try to figure out how he's thinking. I'm not completely convinced about the higher stakes + reg logic though. Wouldn't a regular at higher stakes assume people will read this type of bet as nutted and don't do it with his strongest hands? Or am I overthinking everything again? that's how I would think in villains position at higher stakes anyway, I'd only 2,3x this stack UTG with my strongest hands at low stakes
very true, but the fact that he's a regular probably means he's a thinking player so I think there's a reason in his mind for 3xing, and
its more because hes a robot and has a system....he can't raise smaller because the whole table will flat (prob not what we're suggesting) and he doesn't want to shove because his hand is too strong...
Right, I think at higher stakes that might apply because you can assume reg + higher stakes = somewhat winning/thinking/competent. At these stakes I think there are tons of regs with huge leaks and might be putting some thought into hands but maybe not that much overall. I think by virtue of him 3x'ing in a spot where he should never be 3x'ing, he's probably not thinking that much. I would generally subscribe to jamming in this spot and seeing what he shows up with and taking notes rather folding since we can't conclusively say what he's doing with the 3x, and it's good to find out this stuff early when it's someone you play a bunch.
yes i am in line with all this...and definitely take notes on all regs like this...not that i take -ev spots just for notes..but im happy to take a marginal showdown on someone i expect to play everyday if i think i can learn about a piece of their game...
Comments
now that proper calculation is somewhat the best math model we can come up with but it needs to be adjusted for some things...the adjustment will show that aqo is certainly a jam.....the reasoning is literally because btp says so....
be what upsets (not really) is that we don't all use nash for this....???
not really applicable is villain deviates too much, also, it's certainly not applicable for anything else but unexploitable shoving
nash is an adjustable calculator like stove...
i think nash says villain should push 10.4 and we should call 5.1
but its more about what Jodab. says he is raise calling with.....not nash..:p
here villain has a nutted range and by nash std's we need to fold....but i still think getting it in is correct.....
your link just now said 8%...
nvm, it's utg+1
these aren't up for debate they are the premise for the question....assuming 'A' can we do this....
but just as an aside....a mathematical fold...is a shove if the best players say so....meaning most likely....the math is wrong...
Right, but does that mean you play your 5BB stack any different? Not really. 15BB is much chips and you can't really do much in the way of exploiting other than shoving correctly and hoping he makes mistakes.
Are you getting that read just from this HH?
yes, I think about it from villains perspective and after doing that I don't have reason enough to think he's metagaming the table to the point where he's doing this with 33 to look strong
I think you might be giving him too much credit. Maybe he just 3x's everything and he's not thinking about why. Why do you assume he's at all good?
dunno, just assumed so since it was stated that he was a reg. Also it seems like not even noobs 3x anymore
Just because he plays a lot doesn't mean he's good. The fast that he's 3x'ing with that stack indicates he's clearly not good.
very true, but the fact that he's a regular probably means he's a thinking player so I think there's a reason in his mind for 3xing, and I don't think it is cause he wants to loosen up
Edit: and yes that is a big assumption but it's how my limited experience is telling me to read it
Right, I think at higher stakes that might apply because you can assume reg + higher stakes = somewhat winning/thinking/competent. At these stakes I think there are tons of regs with huge leaks and might be putting some thought into hands but maybe not that much overall. I think by virtue of him 3x'ing in a spot where he should never be 3x'ing, he's probably not thinking that much. I would generally subscribe to jamming in this spot and seeing what he shows up with and taking notes rather folding since we can't conclusively say what he's doing with the 3x, and it's good to find out this stuff early when it's someone you play a bunch.
haha i hate Internet....someone tell me that we agree in this spot for this thread villain is nutted 95%+ of the time....cause if we don't agree for this thread then we have a giant miscommunication ....:-\
I definitely agree with vekked that if we play with this guy more than once we should put it in to try to figure out how he's thinking. I'm not completely convinced about the higher stakes + reg logic though. Wouldn't a regular at higher stakes assume people will read this type of bet as nutted and don't do it with his strongest hands? Or am I overthinking everything again? that's how I would think in villains position at higher stakes anyway, I'd only 2,3x this stack UTG with my strongest hands at low stakes