|
|
I have a few problems with your post dontezuma. I'd first like to say that in order to make a correct decision our assumptions of villain's ranges must be correct. We have some stats, but it's over a smallish hand sample. However, given the stats, we can begin to make assumptions about the villain. The first assumption that jumps out is that the villain probably does not have a very wide raising range. While 6% could be untrue, and it could be tighter, or wider than that, I would venture to say it isn't too much wider if any (basically he probably isn't going to be opening 20% of hands on average).
Using this assumption, as well as other standard assumptions given to unknown players at these stakes, I assume that villain is (1) on more of the passive side, and (2) isn't great with ranges.
 Originally Posted by dontezuma
Isn't QQ at the top of your assumed range here? My guess is that UTG+1 figured you were squeezing and could be on a wider range than QQ+ and decided to shove over to pick up the pot.
While this statement is undoubtedly true, I really don't think it applies here. It is true that if we were squeezing in this spot a large % of the time, and villain was aware of this, then we would need to also squeeze with our value hands with a higher frequency, and could even widen our value range, because we expect villain to play back lighter (given our wide squeeze range).
However, this is 2NL. Villain's are not likely to be thinking that deep into things. Since they aren't likely to 3bet bluff themselves, or squeeze as a bluff themselves, they probably don't assign you a large 3bet/squeeze bluffing frequency, if one at all.
So we can throw out what our perceived range is at this point, as well as balance, and solely play our hand as +EV against his range as possible.
Note: Even if we were to consider our perceived range, well it would not be as wide as you think. We are squeezing an UTG open from the blinds. This doesn't exactly encompass a weak line.
Originally Posted by dontezuma
I disagree that a 3bet is incorrect here. The 3bet is fine, IMO, because this villain could raise big UTG+1 with probably 99+/AJs+/KQs and even some other randoms to keep the .02 players from playing their total rags. I agree with stacks, though, that the continuing range is pretty tight. He could figure you for a squeeze since you're in the BB, and call with JJ+, AJs, and if he was really stubborn, some of his other randoms (KQs) since he has position.
As I stated previously, it really depends on his ranges to determine whether a 3bet is correct or not. And whether calling the 4bet is correct or not. We can only make assumptions. And my assumptions is that if his PFR % is on the low side, that he is likely to given 3bets tremendous credit. He probably doesn't 3bet anything but the premiums, therefore he likely thinks most villains think in this manner. I say this because I doubt this particular player has a HUD, etc to pick up stats/reads.
Also, it really doesn't matter what his opening range is in this case. It only matters what range he is continuing to a 3bet against. If he is folding 99-JJ, AK, and only continuing with QQ+, then a 3bet is pretty obviously not the correct decision. That is because he is folding all worse hands, and only continuing with better.
If he is continuing with his entire opening range, then it might possibly be correct to 3bet. If he is doing something like calling 99-QQ, AK, and 4betting KK-AA, then it may be correct to 3bet/fold. However, these exact assumptions about how he plays his ranges are very hard to come by, and we obviously don't have that information. So we have to use our other assumptions, and that is that he likely has a pretty tight continuing range to a 3bet, one in which we don't fair great against.
I would say that since his opening range is probably tight to begin with, and his continuing range to a 3bet is even tighter, we fare better by calling his open, and outplaying him postflop. Rather than 3betting, and having him fold his worse hands, and only continuing with better. The fact that were are deep could make for more of an argument towards 3bet/folding, because he will call with most pairs to setmine. However, given the fact that we are OOP, I don't really want to build a large pot against a tight range.
|
tough qq spot all in
, Q
, 10
(2 players, 2 all-in)
(one pair, Kings).
Reply With Quote
