Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="fundiver199, post: 6956952, member: 397965"] The issue with calling is, we are out of position, and we are not going to play postflop perfect. Sure its easy, when we know the opponents cards. Like in this case "there was an ace on the flop, and he had it, so we could have folded and saved some chips". But what if he had KJs and bet the A high flop? Then we are folding the best hand. Or what if flop comes 9J4 instead of 9A4? Then he is the one, who can save some chips by not stacking off with his AK. And we still go broke against AA, KK and JJ. The truth is, not a lot of great things will happen, when we call out of position for almost 30% of our chips, unless we flop a set. So if we are to talk about, where solvers might be inaccurate against human players, then its more in their assumption, that there is a need for a calling range in this situation. In theory this allow the solver to fold slightly less, but its very complicated, and humans cant execute it well. So humans playing against other humans likely win more by folding a little more and pushing all the hands, they want to continue with. And as others have said, does his cold 4-betting range really contain all those bluffs, which it is supposed to? Thats certainly up for debate, and if it does not, then the value of QQ shrinks dramatically. If he is only 4-betting KK+, AKs, then QQ only has 27% equity plus massive reverse implied odds postflop, because we go broke on all runouts, that dont contain a Q, K or A. So while incorrect in solver world, against a human player its somewhat ok to just let go of QQ here and still have 55BB to continue in the tournament. Or we can just call QQ pre instead of 3-betting, when we are playing against one of the table chip leaders. Then presumably AKs will squeeze, and then we can dubble flat and see the flop much cheaper, where there is actually some room to maneuver. This is also incorrect in GTO world, but can perhaps induce some spazz and generate EV that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language