Yes, TT is a value bet preflop against a standard LJ open and HJ flat call. Especially when one or both villains call our 3bet (as opposed to 4betting), we will be ahead way more than 1/3 of the time.
1 Like
You are certainly right. although I do disagree with the sizing but that has to do more with your preference strat and your 5th point. and I say this nicely playing for protection should never be in your approach.
To further cement the point at equilibrium TT is not a value hand, KJs even outperforms it. If they deviate from equilibrium then yes TT and other hands will become our value hands.
1 Like
I assume you’re saying TT is 0EV whereas KJs is slightly + ?
I’ll certainly agree that most players will realize more of their equity in this spot with suited broadway than a mid-high pair.
That’s not quite what I get. TT is worth 0.65bb, KJ is worth 0.14bb. Both are indifferent between call and raise though. Only QQ+, KQs+ are clearly higher EV as raises. Hijack calling range is going to be way wider in practice than theory though.
2 Likes
Yes,
Just to be clear so we can be on the same page. Equity is different from EV.
We will definitely have equity with TT but playing vs an equilibrium opponent TT will be 0EV.
We can’t realize our equity out of position which brings down our overall EV.
1 Like
I don’t want to promote but the one I’m using gets 0EV 100bb 6 max with standard rake.
That’s assuming which we both don’t know, we only got what @Younguru provided which was vs 2 competent regs, which is fair to assume 2 competent ranges.
but like I stated in my other comment if they deviate from equilibrium then yes it becomes a blatant value bet.
“competent reg” != equilibrium
they’re still way off from anything approaching GTO baseline
In my experience LJ can be as wide as 22+/T9s+/KTo+, and that’s even in real $ games
HJ of course can be even wider
1 Like
nobody plays GTO, that don’t mean we can’t analyze it through the lens of GTO with the limited info you provided.
2 Likes
It is very dependent on rake by the looks of it. At high rake, you’re right, they’re both basically 0EV. At lower rake, they become playable.
I think we can safely say that the HJ calling range is going to be miles wider than the solver though. At moderate rake, it’s only calling 1% of hands. Pocket pairs below TT mostly go in the muck against 3x, as do most suited aces and almost all suited connectors. It’s a fair bet most competent Replay regs are calling almost everything in those classes.
I do think our realization is actually a bit better multi-way in practice. Our opponents bluffing frequencies will go from not nearly often enough to basically never multi-way, but it’s also important to keep in mind that humans do way worse out of position than the solver does.
3 Likes
In an environment like this, give me TT for 15-20bb preflop from any position, heck, idc
You can comfortably play it the same as flopped trips on this board, evidently
1 Like
Can’t, or harder to realize TT equity, out of position, vs 1, multiple opponents, if flat call, or if 3 bet too small, etc.
If 3 bet big enough, and if only get 1,2 callers at most, then can realize TT equity, out of position, vs 1,2 callers postflop, if 3 bet big enough, and if only get 1,2 callers at most, when out of position. It’s not great, it’s not going to be easier, but it can be done, as far as realizing TT equity in that situation, spot, etc. That said, there will be occasional times when don’t realize TT equity, when 3 bet big enough, play it right in this spot.
1 Like
FWIW, I looked through all the micro-stakes hands I have where the small blind had the opportunity to 3-bet with pocket tens, these are the stats:
| Hands | Profit (bb/100) | VPIP | PFR | Showdown (bb/100) | Non-Showdown | Won at SD (#) | Lost at SD | Won w/o SD | Lost w/o SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 558 | 19.2 | 99 | 74 | -100.8 | 120 | 92 | 81 | 262 | 119 |
From the hands I’ve looked at so far, equity realization is actually amazingly good. People are just way too passive, and we actually almost never get bluffed off our equity. Almost every pot is tiny given 74% of them are 3-bet pots.
I will see what it looks like when at least 3 people make it to the flop as well, but that might be too few hands to be all that meaningful.
2 Likes
Like you said in that NW tourney a couple weeks back. “TT, unfoldable!”
1 Like
So, the hands I have where there’s a pre-flop raise and at least limper are crazy. SB is losing at about -250bb/100. It’s actually even worse when they manage to get the flop heads up, @ -600bb/100.
The strategy seems to be, assume the villain has AK when there’s not an A or K on the flop and keep barreling. When there is an A or K on the flop, try to represent AK and keep barreling. That seems to the strategy for both the SB and the villain. I guess people just lose their minds once the pot is a bit bigger. I don’t think there’s much we can learn from those hands, apart from don’t turn your middling hands into bluffs.
To come back to my initial post, the reasons I think it’s a mistake to think primarily in terms of generating any number of folds are:
- It’s prioritizing winning the most hands over winning the most chips. That’s probably the optimal strategy in most tournament spots, but it’s not the ideal way to think about common ring game spots.
- It’s extremely hard to generate the desired number of folds (without putting yourself in a spot where you only get called by better). Usually, if LJ folds, so will HJ, and if LJ calls, HJ can call with any two
- It’s a complicated way to think about the spot, especially once you start to think about the rest of your range.
Let us assume that TT actually does do best on average if we can get it heads up. What about AK? I think I want as many people in the pot as possible with AK, because if I miss, I give up and lose exactly the same amount, but if I hit, I’m much more likely to win a stack, or even several stacks. Suited connecters on the other hand definitely don’t want to go multiway. If I’m using fold equity as my primary consideration, then I would want to start splitting my betting range, and it’s fairly hard to discern what group most hands belong to.
Alternatively, if you start by thinking - what do my best value hands want to do? - the decisions are a bit simpler. AA wants to get as much money in the pot as possible. That usually means betting the largest possible size where everyone calls, so that’s what all my value does. You still have to decide what the amount is, and then whether TT is worth that, and if not, is it a good bluff candidate, but I think that’s just a much easier framework to step through. More importantly, it’s a much easier framework to adjust to specific opponents.
If I know that at least one opponent is really tight, then tens are no longer value - it doesn’t matter which one - value/not value is the only differentiator.
If you’re trying to generate folds, what happens when the LJ is tight, but the HJ is a whale, or vice versa?
I agree it is mostly a semantic argument, but I enjoy poker more when my first thoughts are about extracting value vs denying equity.
1 Like
Couple of things. It’s important to differentiate Tournament, sit n go strategy from ring game strategy.
As you correctly said, in tournament’s, sit n go’s, it’s more about winning hands, and not losing hands, then getting max, full value chips wise. That’s because losing hands, which leads to busting out, which can lead to no money, is far worse in tournaments then in ring games.
In Ring games, care less about that, and care more about getting max, full value, chips, money, etc.
I’m going to play TT on SB vs LJ 3 bb standard raise differently in a ring game then I would in a cash game. My responses come from a tournament, sit n go perspective, not a ring cash game perspective.
So it would be helpful to differentiate the best way to play TT in this spot based on whether cash game, or whether tournament, sit n go.
- On, about what you said about suited connectors. If 3 bet or raise suited connectors big, or flat call a big raise, then you do want to isolate, not be in a multi way pot. But if you either flat call a small raise or if limp BEHIND LIMPERS IN FRONT, IN LATE POSITION, then your ok with multi way, instead of isolation, as a means of pot odds, to monster hand mine, to bust out a stack with a hidden, disguised monster hand. Suited Connector’s value is because of draw, monster hand possibility, postflop playability even in a multi way pot. So because of that, Suited Connector’s can want multi way pots some of the time, instead of isolation. Isolation is still good tho.
It’s rare to be deep enough to be able to monster hand mine profitably. Suited connecters really need the added equity of being able to bluff, and sometimes the pair outs just being good as well - both of those are a lot less likely multi-way. Reverse implied odds become more of an issue too.
I don’t think limping them is terrible, but suited connecters are a hand to play more for fun than for profit.
Yup. The more I learn about NLHE, the more I use suited connectors to balance/get more board coverage for my 3bet range… and not much else. I think a lot of players who cut their teeth in the early-mid 00s, like me, have had to gradually shed the tendency of that era to overvalue these hands, especially multi-way.
And to your point about reverse implied odds, I’ve lost quite a bit over the years getting flush-over-flushed or straight-over straighted with those hands, even in position. You really have to know what you are doing or suited connectors can be a big leak.
Anecdotally, I think I play suited connectors best as part of my 3betting strategy because it lets me take the initiative (like you said, gotta be able to squeeze some extra equity out of bluff lines), and because play in 3bet pots is usually a lot more well-defined. Taking a hand like 67s to a flop with 2 or 3 opponents whose ranges haven’t been narrowed by preflop action is always going to be pretty speculative.
Raise 15 BB, HJ never has a better hand than ours, and we have a bit of value against LJ. We are out of position and 2 bro has open so we want to do big to win more money when we squezze on value like this hand and more FE in bluff.
1 Like