[2-4]: all-in or fold?

It's a small cardroom, I play with the same people all the time.

if this is true i think shove is printing. i disagree with the frequency this happens though. maybe like ~30% fold AQo, probably never AQss, would blow my mind to see AK fold here

ImE it very much depends on whether players know me or not. The default is usually that people think I'm super tight. It's not unusual that I hear comments about how nitty I am even when I don't play nitty at all. I guess it helps that I often show value hands and almost never show bluffs. Then when people know me better, sometimes they do a 180 and start calling me down super light, I think it becomes an ego thing then. And of course the good regs will just range me decently accurately.

UTG and UTG+1 are good regs and are never folding AK here, and at least UTG isn't folding AQ either. The comment was really only talking about UTG+2, who doesn't know me. I think I stand by that UTG+2 folding AQ given this action would be unsurprising. But we've already discussed how I undervalued the importance of all the other players. UTG has a random hand, but he'll probably call at least 5% of the time, which is significant, and the probability is a little higher for UTG+1 after the limp as RaiseAnnounced pointed out, so yeah that will definitely drag the EV down quite a bit.

As a standard, it's something like the top 15-30% of hands minus the top 3-5% of hands, depending on reads.

There are some with very different range makeups, but they're discounted by virtue of the fact that they're cold calling in the first place.

seems reasonable

Okay, so this lowkey has me flip-floppin lol.

Along the lines of the stochastic defensiveness, people's call frequencies are probably going to change wildly based on things external to strategy, like whether (or not) you're double shuffling chips, dressed eccentrically, are asian, are a boy, etc, so if people overfold to you, then people will probably stare you down then default to mostly just calling the tight range.

Of course these EV considerations are so sensitive that this opens you up to doing so much stuff in the vacuum of any one hand that you will (and apparently have against some opponents) torch their credulity pretty quickly, and then it all converges back to actual strategic considerations. It's like gravity for theory.

And?

is hard to tell because you post articulately and are good poster. u are just a duck swimming in a lake of aquatic creatures with extreme weak tight tendencies / projections (the 2p2 forums) so i end up skeptical about very explo assumptions posted here

i dont really fault a jam though in the heat of the moment looks like its at least fringe and i think its infinitely better to err on the side of aggression

Nits get called 3ways where I play. Everyone knows what you have (only you have worse) and you can be manipulated. Hit a hand and take you to value town, miss a hand and make you fold.

FWIW
I have never known a Nit that would drive KQ OOP in a multi-way pot.

The only way to confuse opponents reads is to Never Show Your Cards. Trying to show you’ve always got it, is not particularly effective. I still have players asking what I had in a hand I played a month ago and can’t even remember.

Being mysterious is +EV

Well I'm on good speaking terms with both of them and know that neither of them has a different job. UTG also plays more than literally anyone else and imo is the strongest player at these stakes.

Idk, my view has always been that it makes sense to encourage people thinking I'm nitty. The exploit is really straight-forward, it's just bluffing more. Whereas if people thought I was mysterious as you put it, idk how to translate that into an exploitative adjustment.

I don’t know how you can think that people think you’re nitty playing KQo from the worst position at the table.

Maybe, you’re the one being exploited. Limped with KK cause he knew you’d take a stab with nothing and possibly stack off.

No one saw me jamming KQo though. UTG+2 was nice enough to show first, so all people know is that I didnt have AA.

Thank goodness!

I didn't think I was arguing against anyone. I was seeking clarification regarding something you posted, specifically that the reveal had no impact on how you viewed the hand. Perhaps I should have also highlighted the prior clause, where you said, "I believe is the first time he limped a premium".

Focusing specifically on the statement which includes those two clauses - first, assuming you didn't get a reveal on every hand he limped, we can't logically deduce this is the first instance of him limping a premium.

But even if we think it's a reasonable inference that he isn't NORMALLY limping premiums, your read, "a pro but one who starts doing things he knows are stupid when he's running badly. I've seen him limp first in a few times..." would seem to suggest that you noticed SOMETHING happening with him, and if you were paying attention (as it seems you were), but also using sound logical inference, you might deduce that he's deviating from his norms, such that it opens up the possibility he might limp a premium NOW, even if we've never seen him do it before.

In that light, I think there would be something to learn here - we should watch for when opponents we otherwise think are solid start making fishy plays.

As for the rest - I stand by the comment I made that you seem to prefer running equity calcs over applying logic to some of the hand histories you post. Whether the calcs support your decision or not, the point is that you're running them with the implied assumption that they MIGHT support your decisions, whereas logic and pooled experience would say otherwise.

Therefore, regardless of whether or not we think V is limping premiums, I default to the larger point I made - your shove has to get through 5 opponents, including two who have yet to act, an EP limper who you've apparently noted is playing differently than usual, and the original raiser with an uncapped range.

Why would we need an equity calc to show us this is bad, when all our pooled experience and basic logic could save us the effort?

Fair ‘nuf.

Oh, well yeah I'm biting that bullet all day! I'll always take an equity calculation over high-level reasoning. Imo a calculation is just strictly better because it narrows done the scope of disagreement. Once you have a calculation there's always only two options, either you agree with the calculation, or you disagree with an input to the calculation. Both are improvement because in one case the question is settled, and in another case the point of disagreement has been narrowed down. So it can't really be not worth doing.

No one did this in the original thread with the complicated calculation, but I always framed it as not "this is the answer to the hand" but rather "this is my model in more detail so that you can target your disagreement more narrowly". (And a few people did it here by critiquing the variable of the remaining players as being too small, which I agreed with.)

Even if we go only by results in this case I think the calculation performed better than just taking the opinions of people posting. Yes both said that the jam wasn't good, but by how much? Everything in poker is quantitative, you can always change parameters (such as making my stack 130€ smaller). My view now is that it was only narrowly unprofitable, maybe on the order of -25€ EV all things considered. I don't get this estimate from just pooled experience.

There’s a little bit of math in the opinions and it says fold pre-flop. In your calculations consider ‘win frequency’ against a crowd with a marginal hand, equity is of less importance.

Somehow, you have validated your play, but please don’t say it’s because of math and calculations. It’s so hard for humans to be objective I guess.

If I earned 50$ every time someone in this forum claimed that I defended my play when in fact I denounced my play, I would get a significant cushion for my bankroll!

I guess it just seems like you’re defending your play. IDK

So, take this for whatever it's worth...

If we know open-jamming 72o is always really bad, we probably don't need to quantify how bad it actually is. It ought to be enough to simply understand why it's bad (the logic of it being bad), without needing to prove it mathematically. Someone either understands it's bad, or they don't.

We can extrapolate outward from there, to include lots of situations where a certain action is either generally good or generally bad, without the need to strictly define a set of assumptions in order to quantify why something is generally good or bad.

Certainly there are close or marginal spots where the EV of various actions run close enough that it's worth diving into some calcs, but lots of decisions just don't benefit from those deep dives.

Like, we know opening for a raise is generally going to show higher EV than limping. We know c-bets tend to be higher EV than checking back as the PFR. We know bluffing with cards that block some of our opponents' stronger hands is better than bluffing with total air.

I think this is one of those spots that doesn't require a lot of computation to understand.

What I've pointed out to you, and I think others may have pointed this out as well, is that you have a pattern of posting hands, getting comments from people who explain why something is going to be generally bad, and as a response, you post lengthy replies in which you assign opponents a certain range and run equity calcs, resulting in a quantification of how wrong your play was, when simply knowing that it's generally wrong, and the logical reasons why, should have been enough.

Whether the equity calcs show you anything or not, what you're effectively doing is deconstructing the game in a way that would seem to make it more complicated than it needs to be, rather than making it simpler, which it can be. You can always go back and "prove" to yourself how bad a play is, but understanding the logic of why it's bad is more likely to prevent you from making it in the first place.

As always, I hope something I've said is helpful. You are of course free to disagree or disregard.

PS - this thread reminds me of a hand I played from my last session - I over-limp TT from MP, expecting the aggro kid two seats to my left to raise, which he does. Another aggro kid in the straddle 3B's. Action gets back to me, and I can't wait to jam. First aggro kid folds. Second aggro kid made such a huge 3B that he pot-committed himself to calling off with A8o, he couldn't improve, and I scooped.

I'm generally not doing this $hlt. Usually I'm just opening TT for a raise, but I did what I did because I was paying attention to the action and felt pretty good getting my 50 straddles stack in against any of the aggro kids at my table, and that seemed like the best way to do it, as opposed to opening for a raise.

Your man in UTG1 may have limped-called with KK, but the original raiser could have had a real hand when he opened, and he might have called you off. Four opponents decided to VPIP before action got to you. Any of them might have been doing something you wouldn't expect based on their actions.

Some of this stuff can't be quantified.