10/20 AQs preflop

[Robb]

I might have missed it but where was UTG's hand range listed?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I routinely check my stats on tables to see how I'm looking to my opponents.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe I should know how to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always have to click on the name plate, hold and drag down. You'll need to have 25 hands (or whatever you set) at the table before it works. Also, for some reason, sometimes it won't work at some tables. No idea what that's about.

[toss]

Is anyone worried that the 49/19 will make it 3 bets a fair amount of the time if we coldcalled?

[AceHigh]

If your not sure you should fold. He seems like a tight raiser so I would fold most of the time. One reason I don't like playing is he will probably be able to play correctly against us if he has a pocket pair.

[ErrantNight]

i'd like to cold call... you're definitely in the bottom range of hands UTG raises with here, but you're not a prohibitive underdog. you've got a chance that you'll get a cold-caller, if not more than one behind you. tight blinds or no, the bb may be influenced to come along.

regardless... you have a strong hand that plays well multiway and position on the preflop aggressor.

i'd rather fold than raise, but i think it's close.

i don't like raising because villain is tight enough and your position is poor enough that you're going to end up in some uncomfortable positions a fair portion of the time. as for folding... you have the advantage of position and the advantage that you're not a moron... but you're in the bottom range of villain's raising hands and i don't think you're giving up a lot, if anything, by making this fold.

[ErrantNight]

5% pfr not enough?

[ErrantNight]

not particularly.

49/19 doesn't mean his 3-betting range is huge.

a 3-bet doesn't mean we're in trouble, and may spook UTG enough to occasionally get him to fold a hand improperly later (assuming action).

if we flop nicely and end up with a decent hand, we'll be able to punish everyone accordingly.

[sweetjazz]

I agree that the stat takes a while to converge, but it can still be useful by 100 hands. Say I sit down on a table against someone in my buddy list and when his PT stats come up, I have 100 hands on him. Now I don't remember anything from those 100 hands. I look and see that he went to showdown 44% of the time. I don't have time to go back through all the hands and see what he has showndown, but I make a mental note to watch what he is showing down. Six hands later, he calls down a preflop raiser who bets all three streets with 98s after the flop came A94 rainbow. Now I know to value bet this guy relentlessly.

How did the stats come in handy? It had me consciously thinking to check what this guy is showing down. I might have made the same read without the stats, but I also might have been distracted by focusing on what the PFR had (which I also use to make a read) in the hand and not noticed villain's hand (or not realized his call-down was especially bad given the way the hand played out).

BTW, suppose you are acting last on the river and you somehow knew that the point at which value-betting and checking behind have the same EV is against a villain who sees 40% of showdowns. (Against someone who sees more showdowns, value-betting is better because you beat the extra hands, while against a tighter player checking behind is better because he would have already folded some of the worst hands you beat.) If you always look at how often he has gone to showdown in your database (say you have 200 hands on him), you will do better in the long run than by just guessing (assume for the sake of discussion that the average went to showdown amount is 40%). Of course, you will sometimes get 1000 more hands on the villain and realize that you would have made the opposite decision because his updated showdown % is different than what it was after 200 hands.

The point where it would be a mistake is if the value bet only works if someone sees 50% or more of showdowns and the guy has a 52% went to showdown after a small sample of hands. Then, it may very well be more likely that he sees less than 50% of showdowns but has skewed stats because of the sample size than that his true long-term went to showdown % is at least 50.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd like to cold call... you're definitely in the bottom range of hands UTG raises with here, but you're not a prohibitive underdog. you've got a chance that you'll get a cold-caller, if not more than one behind you. tight blinds or no, the bb may be influenced to come along.

regardless... you have a strong hand that plays well multiway and position on the preflop aggressor.

i'd rather fold than raise, but i think it's close.

i don't like raising because villain is tight enough and your position is poor enough that you're going to end up in some uncomfortable positions a fair portion of the time. as for folding... you have the advantage of position and the advantage that you're not a moron... but you're in the bottom range of villain's raising hands and i don't think you're giving up a lot, if anything, by making this fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't like the idea that we're saying we're at the bottom of his range. I think this is along the lines of the egotistical falacy.

Someone playing 60% of the hands is apparently oblivious to fundamental values of starting hands. I've seen people limp with AKo UTG, but raise A3s UTG. They like to be sooted. It makes sense to them.

I'm just saying that to assume that because we have 60/5 over 100 hands doesn't mean a lot. And it certainly doesn't mean that the 5% of hands he's raising is the 5% of hands that we think it is.

I guess I do like a call here better, but I certainly like a 3 bet before a fold.

[ErrantNight]

the fact that he might play a messed up 5% doesn't convince me