Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

I don't understand how people are saying this "isn't close". I think three-betting here is fine, but this hand is just over the threshold of profitability with worse hands being losers in this spot. If you are one of the people who said this is super easy and not close to unprofitable, then where do you consider the borderline to be where a three-bet in this spot tips towards -EV? AT? KQ?

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can do the math if this is challenged, but I think you are behind raiser's range. I think PFR converges very quickly and would give that 2300 hand read some weight. Since we are getting pretty exact in this thread, it is pertinent to know how the 13/8 stat is filtered.

Even though you are behind raiser's range, I think there is a case to made for 3 betting, and it is what I would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stats were filtered for 10/20 data from tables with eight or more players. I would love to see what you come up with because I'm pretty sure I'm behind the pfr's range.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how people are saying this "isn't close". I think three-betting here is fine, but this hand is just over the threshold of profitability

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about where I see it. It seems some think that just because you will 3 bet here you will just blow chips postflop along the way as if one had blinders on. If you do see the flop, you do have to be a little careful.

b

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
then where do you consider the borderline to be where a three-bet in this spot tips towards -EV? AT? KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good question because it should be +EV if he was just a naked raise, but the presence of the limper should firm him back up, but it also sways the hand values a little, a cold call with KQs should be profitable here right? Especially if we can expect a call from the BB. AJo is clearly a loser, AJs possibly ok, but I'm willing to bet it's on the edge of negative. AQs liekly healthy, AQo, not so good. These are all by feel and not by simulation but I'd be interested to see were the break over is. It would also be interesting to see were the break over is for pairs. Around 88 I would think.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
but the presence of the limper should firm him back up,

[/ QUOTE ]

Should also consider the 'type' of limper we have here. If the raiser is 'decent' he is likely aware he isn't just raising anybody here.

b

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
then where do you consider the borderline to be where a three-bet in this spot tips towards -EV? AT? KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good question because it should be +EV if he was just a naked raise, but the presence of the limper should firm him back up, but it also sways the hand values a little, a cold call with KQs should be profitable here right? Especially if we can expect a call from the BB. AJo is clearly a loser, AJs possibly ok, but I'm willing to bet it's on the edge of negative. AQs liekly healthy, AQo, not so good. These are all by feel and not by simulation but I'd be interested to see were the break over is. It would also be interesting to see were the break over is for pairs. Around 88 I would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm 3-betting 99+, calling with 77 and 88, folding 66-, raising AQo+. I'm still on the fence about AJs.

The difference between AJo and AQo is clearly demarcated enough for me to consider AQo an easy 3-bet. I don't think AJo is a "clear" loser here, but it's enough of a marginal 3-bet that I'm not making it without postflop reads.

Rob

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

Definitely, and the fact that player is a fish in front of him would make him more likely to raise with hands such as KJ,QJ etc... in order to isolate rather then limp behind.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you do see the flop, you do have to be a little careful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Chance of being outplayed, as well as being behind to begin with. If the 13/8 guy is weak post-flop, then maybe I'd try it once in a while.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

easy 3-bet IMO as the villains range to isolate the fish is wide.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The more poker you play the more you should realise that AQo is virtually never fit to cold-call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I teach my wife that she should never coldcall as the 1st one in. Then, when she's not looking, I coldcall raises with AQ all the time. You can play this hand to fit or fold profitably under almost all table conditions.

I only fold against the tightest raisers, and only 3-bet against the loosest, and feel that, after struggling with this hand for ages, I finally have AQ figured out...

-Eric

edit: just realized that this is not the OP, but the "first unread" post in this thread I'm visiting for the first time... In teh hand, I like a 3-bet, calling next, folding last.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

Given the read, folding can't possibly be right. If he raises 8% and can be even wider now, you have to play.

The main reason to call is to ensure that you keep the terrible fish in there donating. On the other hand, with AQ, you don't necessarily want this. Isolating the good player with a weak hand may allow you to win this frequently unimproved, especially since a normally tightish player who gets 3-bet when he's on a sort of steal is likely to fold like a cheap suit after the flop.

Therefore, I like a 3-bet. If terrible limper wants to call 2 cold, more power to him. Err, hold on... maybe more power to us. Just a second, I got it... more money to us.

-eric

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
AJo is clearly a loser

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between AJo and AQo is clearly demarcated enough for me to consider AQo an easy 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Entity here. In my mind, AJ becomes marginal, but perhaps still 3-bettable, and AQ is clearly there. Whether or not it's a huge sum of money made when I 3-bet is up for debate, but what's "clear" is that 3-betting is profitable and better then calling. Maybe it's only a fraction better and I'm really dialed in, but in my mind, it's "clear".

-Eric

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason to call is to ensure that you keep the terrible fish in there donating.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a rarity if the limper as described in the OP folded for 2 more bets after limping in initially.

3 betting preflop also tends to make the hand easier to play.

b

Another way to find the answer...
 

A terrible fish limps. You have the range of cards that you would raise. What hands would you raise?

Now, with that in mind, what do you want the guy on your right to do with AQ?

I'd say I'd want him to play like this:

- fold
- call and play fit or fold
- call and play tough
- 3-bet

Really, call and play tough and 3-bet should be pretty similar, but the 3-bet is going to have me heads up with the 3-bettor with OOP with my crap hand more than calling, so I prefer that he just call.

Since 3-bet shows up at the bottom of my list of what I want my opponents to do, that's what I do when I'm the guy with the AQ.

-Eric

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

The 3-bet seems to be a little worse than his range, but the dead money mostly makes up for it. If you don't 3-bet here, you better not play many more pots with him, because your options on future hands are either (1) Limit yourself to AA-QQ, AK, or (2) Replace your avatar with an "I don't have an Ace when I 3-bet" sign.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

Should be ahead of his range as long as it includes hands like A9s, KTs, KJo, and ATo, which is likely given his 13/8 stats over 2k+ hands and being in the hijack with a bad fish limper.

Likely hand range:

equity (%)
Hand 1: 52.9966 % { AQo }
Hand 2: 47.0034 % { 77+, A9s+, KTs+, QJs, ATo+, KJo+ } {11.8% of hands)

Including bad limper (a 42/3 type):

equity (%)
Hand 1: 37.2694 % { AQo }
Hand 2: 36.5258 % { 77+, A9s+, KTs+, QJs, ATo+, KJo+ }
Hand 3: 26.2047 % { JJ-22, A2s+, K5s+, Q6s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, 43s, A2o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T8o+, 97o+, 87o }


Tighter hand range:

equity (%)
Hand 1: 49.1142 % { AQo }
Hand 2: 50.8858 % { 77+, ATs+, KJs+, QJs, AJo+, KQo } {9.4% of hands}

Including the bad limper

equity (%)
Hand 1: 34.9757 % { AQo }
Hand 2: 39.0491 % { 77+, ATs+, KJs+, QJs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 3: 25.9751 % { JJ-22, A2s+, K5s+, Q6s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, 43s, A2o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T8o+, 97o+, 87o }


If they both call the 3bet and blinds fold, you'll have put 3 small bets into a 10.5 small bet pot (28.5% of the money) with at least 35-37% equity, initiative, position on both of them, and at least one of them playing poorly postflop.

AQo is a 3-bet here for me. AJo however is much more marginal case, probably requiring an opponent with a wider raising range, or specific postflop reads.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can do the math if this is challenged, but I think you are behind raiser's range. I think PFR converges very quickly and would give that 2300 hand read some weight. Since we are getting pretty exact in this thread, it is pertinent to know how the 13/8 stat is filtered.

Even though you are behind raiser's range, I think there is a case to made for 3 betting, and it is what I would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are behind the PFR's raising range. However, the limper and the blinds and your position more than make up for this.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AJo is clearly a loser

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated in my post this was done by feel but we have a fairly tight raiser who we suspect is maybe playing a bit looser with the limper. Well AJ doubles our domination chances, I suspect that our villan is not much looser than ATo and maybe KQ KJ ish and of course the pairs and I'll say down to 66 on those. That's about 12% of hands and I don't see him getting to much further out of line with at least the BB likely to play also. (Remember he's only making it 2 bets)

With that hand range AJo is at an equity disadvantage to the raise, plus we have the nice added position of having to pay off with our dominated hands.

AQo it's close it really is and it could really hinge on one or two hands that the guy might raise with. Now if your going to tell me he raises with 1/3 of all hands here yea it's an easy 3 bet, but he's not going to widen his range that much if he only has an 8% raise score overall.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

you're not turning jason into anything. this is a very easy threebet.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AJo is clearly a loser

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated in my post this was done by feel but we have a fairly tight raiser who we suspect is maybe playing a bit looser with the limper. Well AJ doubles our domination chances, I suspect that our villan is not much looser than ATo and maybe KQ KJ ish and of course the pairs and I'll say down to 66 on those. That's about 12% of hands and I don't see him getting to much further out of line with at least the BB likely to play also. (Remember he's only making it 2 bets)

With that hand range AJo is at an equity disadvantage to the raise, plus we have the nice added position of having to pay off with our dominated hands.

AQo it's close it really is and it could really hinge on one or two hands that the guy might raise with. Now if your going to tell me he raises with 1/3 of all hands here yea it's an easy 3 bet, but he's not going to widen his range that much if he only has an 8% raise score overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

More simply our equity drops from about 34% with AQ to about 28.5% with AJ against a fishy limper and an 8% raiser.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

Ok I ran PS (yea I know showdown stuff) for AQo with a 60% player followed by a raisers hand at the 12% range I defined earlier. Our equity is on the plus side at ~37%, however most of our equity is comming from the bad player, not the raiser.(Really that's not suprising) As that bad player tightens up or the good Lord forbid folds correctly it shrinks our edge. It also doesn't take much of a tightening from the raiser to kill our edge, with that said given the players I like the 3 bet.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

8% PFR was enough, for starters. I also took a shot at thinking that a 13/8 might actually be capable of thinking about the game beyond just the cards he's holding, since he appears capable of at least some thought.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
he's aggro and decent but overaggro in the wrong spots and definitely capable of realizing his position and concepts like isolation etc) now raises. Next player, a TAG, folds. You're OTB with AQo.

You...

[/ QUOTE ] unclick autopost after you 3-bet and find a better seat.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I ran PS (yea I know showdown stuff) for AQo with a 60% player followed by a raisers hand at the 12% range I defined earlier. Our equity is on the plus side at ~37%, however most of our equity is comming from the bad player, not the raiser.(Really that's not suprising) As that bad player tightens up or the good Lord forbid folds correctly it shrinks our edge. It also doesn't take much of a tightening from the raiser to kill our edge, with that said given the players I like the 3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you run the raiser with a 12% range, AQo is ahead of his range, so it's profitable no matter what the limper does.

Even giving the raiser an 8% range, we have 47% equity heads up. So if everyone folds including the limper, we've got 1.25 BB's in dead money to fight over. I think position alone makes up for the slight equity disadvantage we have with a 8% raisers range.

So what I'm saying is that we're in a profitable situation whether the limper folds or not. Also, loose limpers don't fold for two more bets after they've put a bet in the pot.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

3-bet it. Fish will probably fold, leaving you and one other, who apparently could be overly aggressive with his play. But, I suck so what do I know?

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

you guys are all a bunch of lagtards.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

To be honest i dont think the preflop matters all that much, all three options are viable, they you will make money in this situation is post flop, play it well and both cold calling and raising should turn a profit, folding however will ensure that you dont lose money.

The important thing about this hand is the other players.

I would consider the following

- bb sb, are they willing to coming along if we three bet? or just call? are they loose or tight?

- Limper will he possible fold for two more bets? also will he stick around post flop?

- First raiser will he respect and fold the flop unimproved or will he stay around?

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

8% PFR was enough, for starters. I also took a shot at thinking that a 13/8 might actually be capable of thinking about the game beyond just the cards he's holding, since he appears capable of at least some thought.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, where did this read come from?

[ QUOTE ]
but my read is that he's aggro and decent but overaggro in the wrong spots and definitely capable of realizing his position and concepts like isolation etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe he is "definitely capable". I mean you bolded the words, so there must be some specific instance that jumps to your mind that makes you this sure. I am just wondering what made you sure enough to bold your words as if there can be no doubt about this read.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

8% PFR was enough, for starters. I also took a shot at thinking that a 13/8 might actually be capable of thinking about the game beyond just the cards he's holding, since he appears capable of at least some thought.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, where did this read come from?

[ QUOTE ]
but my read is that he's aggro and decent but overaggro in the wrong spots and definitely capable of realizing his position and concepts like isolation etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe he is "definitely capable". I mean you bolded the words, so there must be some specific instance that jumps to your mind that makes you this sure. I am just wondering what made you sure enough to bold your words as if there can be no doubt about this read.

[/ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

Rob

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

The AQ test applies to a tight UTG raiser and looking at your hand against the range of this raiser. In our case the TAG raiser has a much larger range of hands than an UTG raiser so we should 3 bet. If his range includes hands like TT AJs, ATs, 99, 88, KQ then this is an easy raise. I think all these hands are pretty likely and his range might even be a little bit larger

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
this isn't a test. this isn't even a [censored] homework assignment. this is the first day of pre-k when you learn how to tie your shoes and hang up your [censored] coat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your best post ever.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with that statement, which I don't feel has been adequately addressed yet, is that a guy who is very capable of raising to isolate should have a pfr > 8%.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with that statement, which I don't feel has been adequately addressed yet, is that a guy who is very capable of raising to isolate should have a pfr > 8%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is kind of what I was trying to point out. That the read Entity gave made raising a no brainer, however there was no specific example that he pointed out which could refute the stats. Digging deeper into the stats could help clarify what type of player this guy is.

However all we have is basically "The stats say this guy is 13/8 preflop... but I disagree"... then a bunch of people say OK.

This is not to say that a case can't be made for three-betting anyway. However the only reason it is a no brainer is because of the read that Entity gives yet does not justify.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

This is one case where I agree with all the 2+2 raising stations. It's a 3-bet for me because we have absolute position, we will most likely get the blinds out and have it down to 3-way, and we can define the PFR's range a lot better when we see if he caps or not. If he caps, I HATE my hand. If he just calls, I think we're in pretty good shape.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

I'm dead serious when I say this, boys. Your BB/100 will go up by moving seats in this hand than you will worrying about the 3-bet.

I'm sure of it.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with that statement, which I don't feel has been adequately addressed yet, is that a guy who is very capable of raising to isolate should have a pfr > 8%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't he be playing slightly different on this particular session? I see this in the cardroom all the time. All of a sudden a loose passive is making a good, yet marginal, raises during a session. A raise that you're suprised that he's doing as he normally doesn't do it. Maybe he read a recent article in a magazine or something. It kind of supercedes any prior reads you've had from other sessions. So you adjust for it until they revert back to their normal way of playing that you're used to. I don't think that is just limited to live play. Btw...I saw alot of this when Hellmuths book came out. Normal passives were jamming lots of hands you'd never have thought they would. Eventually they reverted back to their weak ways, but that doesn't mean you play them the same way regardless.

This is one of the detriments of relying too much on stats. It can make you ignore subtle changes the player may be making for whatever reason during that session(s).

b