I try to take a guess at what the equilibrium is going to look like from comparing similar situations I've studied in Pio.

It sounds like the preflop stats were an anomaly. It's actually fairly rare IME for 17/15/5 over ~140 hands to converge to solid preflop stats.

I think some of timing is noise and some is signal. It's a bit different to interpret on 4 tables.

@6:30- I think this is on the loose side of reasonable; not sure how big the rake effect is.

@30- Well, value is going to be 7x+ (88, J9, 7x, probably not TT) and then bluffs are drawn from the margins for a large bet like this. Combo draws are going to be a big part of range because OOP's 3b freq will be low with nutty hands since his turn BC range is so overpair (marginal at this SPR) heavy. Then we add some combos on the call/fold margin to apply pressure in cases our draws complete and we want to develop a bluff region; so for example A9cc/J8/86/AdK, that sort of thing.

Appreciate the response Ben, I was actually more interested in your high frequency flop raises on the T77tt, should have clarified.

D,

I think flop is fairly polarized vs the large sizing. A lot of trips certainly, and then a bunch of the semibluffs, and a fair number of weak bluffs on call/fold margin to apply pressure on draw complete turns/rivers. So, hands like 22-66+*d, any gutter, a bit of AcJc type stuff, all the straight draws, that kind of thing. Of course all this stuff is going to be mixed.

Nice post

One thing it seems like I disagree with the player pool about is how much protection to apply in these multiway spots.

So... let's first note that BB x/r all of his trips is a really big deviations from my idea of optimal. If that's our read on the pool we should be relentless vs BB xc.

I think I was wrong here, but wrong for different reasons. I think it's really important where the RFI comes from and how the overcaller's range is going to break down into weakish draws, weakish pairs, and overpairs. Vs HJ/UTG I like X behind turn because we narrow RFI's range to too many dominating overpairs after betting turn. Vs CO specifically I like betting turn because he has a few more 8x combos (does this guy raise A8o in CO? Nice read to have here!) and a generally less overpair heavy range.

From the incredulity in your post it sounds like 500z players are really weak here and it was a huge botch to X behind.

I was more surprised/curious rather than incredulous. I don't play on Stars so I'm not sure how the pool is playing bb's spot.

I should play around in CREV with this one to see how RFI position, RFI size, and bb flop [x/r vs. x/c with trips] frequency affect our strategy. If I do I'll post again.

thanks for the reply!

We go geo when we have a high freq medium-strong value region and a solid number of bluffs. I was overthinking this one; AK is getting value here and we just need to add a large number of bluffs to max EV I think.

You're correct that duplicating a high freq card in his bluffing range makes reshove better relative to call, but folding is still usually best. We might as well draw our reshove range from a region that doesn't duplicate his Q, increasing our fold equity. It's not hard to satisfy our frequency here fwiw. I'm leaning towards reshoving a hand that blocks the pocket pair he's most likely to play to this line for value which I think is JdJ. So KJ is definitely getting in there for me. AJ is a little dicey because it's tempting to think I can chop. KKK might be a good choice? That effect with the J blocking seems like a real thing to me, I might take that pretty far.

Honestly how does this guy have the Ad here unless it's AdQx and he didn't XR flop/turn and then makes a bad lead on river? Then there's the gap between J->9 with T on board. Possible we just bluff 98s type stuff to block the PP+diamond combos since the non FD medium pairs easily fold turn, but it just seems like people are showing up with JdJx at this line a lot IME.

Thanks for posting ITT.

It seems like many of the regs, starting at high stakes, have adopted the 5-6x sizing OOP. I encourage you to play around with a preflop solver to see if the data supports this.

Mako, I disagree with all of your assumptions (optimally). OOP should XF a bunch of air, and should X (intending to fold) turn with another large portion of it. OOP should also fold some bluffcatchers to the turn barrel.

It should be pretty clear we can't be at equilibrium given the set of assumptions you described.

That being said, I (exploitatively) kind of agree with you, except to a much less extreme degree. So maybe I think it's optimal for OOP to fold 35-40% to the turn barrel and my read on the population is that they're folding more like 25-30%, which is still a pretty big deviation.

I'd caution you to try and quantify your reads and to develop a sense for when and when not the action frequencies your reads say are likely are close or far from equilibrium.

Well, I like your answer. Maybe I'm wrong but I often see that people check such A-high boards with most their 99-KK and sometimes with weak Ax. The only point which I disagree - I don't that people would fold 25-30% to turn bet, my guess would be way lower. But maybe you are right.

I don't think Pio is doing much raise folding with overpairs on this board OOP.

Haha yea the title was a bit of an overstatement