Hey,

I didn't add the option because doing something like a min or a 2.5 x checkraise on a board/with positions where our opponent always has two (good) overs didn't seem correct, and if we x/r to something like 50% pot would be going to ~4k which is about 1/3rd of our stack, which also didn't seem right since when we x/r we'd want at least a gutter or two overs + BDFD, so not a lot of hands that would want to put that much money in and then fold. So I though allowing for only a XRAI would be a good approximation. However, I could be off too, and so I'm going to re-run the sim right now allowing for a 45% pot x/r.

To follow up, you are completely right! When allowing a 45% pot x/r (1200 to 3726), PIO doesn't use the XRAI sizing at all and only uses the smaller x/r. This also has the effect of changing IP's small bet frequency, and a larger size is used more often. We don't x/r small against the large size.

I also ran another sim where I shaved off 3k off OOP's stack, so we have 9.5k on the flop instead of 12.5k, and we still use the small x/r over the shove against a small bet.

The EV difference of adding the small x/r is small though - 6 chips in a pot of 1.3k so something like .2% pot - but that's assuming perfect adjustments, and I think humans will play worse against the x/r than PIO will, whereas making a mistake against a shove is less likely.

Good find and thanks for pointing out the mistake.

Here's the original sim in case anyone wants to play around:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/evfh9e7d4yskcgr/J7%20original.txt?dl=0

Thanks!

I actually think that the initial call pre is a lot closer/looser than the call against the squeeze. From what I've seem pairs don't really get folded to against preflop 3bets at these SPRs, so I assume they get called against a squeeze range as well, particularly when it's a more "rare" pair (peeling 22 is probably marginally making more than peeling 44 here since we're less expected to have a set when we do have one). I certainly don't think I'm printing by calling by any means, and would fold this one in a soft field where I couldn't re-enter.

Great question!

Timing tells aside, I much prefer peeling with 76s over KJo if I think people are likely to be underbluffing/valueheavy/generally nitty/too polarized. So I cut out all but the best offsuit broadways out of my range, since when I make a hand with them I'm generally either going to be dominated or not get value, and not get good bluffing opportunities. With 76s and other suited connected stuff I do get good bluffing opportunities, and when I make my hand it's easy to get value and I wouldn't be dominated.

In general what my continue range looks like is: anything that's suited that I raised for "value", ATo and any suited one gappers+ that I decided to raise. I'm going to be mixing a lot preflop with stuff like 86s etc, hence the general description of the rangem but hopefully this gives you a good idea.

I agree. Looking at the spot again, versus a good (or just aggressive) opponent I think my hand is also just a high frequency check.

Hey!

It seems like the reason that you think initial call may be too lose is because there are active players behind, but once there's a squeeze, it's a relatively easy call. Really don't follow the logic yet. Can you elaborate some more?

Correct, I think the initial call is pretty marginal, mostly because there are so many people behind and because we will get squeezed fairly often. Just because it's profitable to call against a squeeze doesn't meant that's a situation we want to be in. Think of it like opening a hand that is near the bottom of your call vs 3bet range and then getting 3bet: continuing against the 3bet is +EV but getting 3bet definitely costs you EV compared to being in other branches of the game tree.

What do you mean from what you've seen? Is that using some preflop solver?

Yeah, I just ran a PIOpre sim of this spot and gave these ranges:

IP squeeze:

OOP range:

And while the sim is still pretty crude and I would have liked to let it run longer, this is what it's converging to so far:

So it looks like low pocket pairs will be marginal/breakeven ish continues (I actually thought they would be performing a bit better).

Cheers!

I'm having trouble intuitively understanding why PIO wants us to check-raise every 76o combo, 2/3rds of our 76s combos, but then 0% of out 75s combos.

76 wants to checkraise because it's a hand with a lot of equity, yet is very vulnerable to being drawn out on by overcards. When we get in against overpairs we're still in pretty good shape (but we don't get to stack them on runouts that are good for us if we x/c). 75 also has a lot of equity but doesn't require the protection that 76 does because it can't get drawn out on by an unpaired hand over one street. As far as 76s goes - the hands combos with no FDs get pure x/raised just like the 76o, so calling sometimes with 76s just has to do with that.

following up on how PIO wants us to c-r Kx7d while flat Kd7x, this is because villain is cbetting Kd[ ] at a higher frequency than Kno diamond[ ] so when we have the Kd in our hand we're facing a stronger cbet range?

Yes, we're facing a stronger range and our BDFD is strong and meaningful.

Also noticed that for your preflop range in the same hand you included AJs and KQs as calls - are you shoving those some % of the time? or pure flats for both?

Pure flatting both.

Thank you!

With 14bb you should be playing a significant amount of push/fold, but I wouldn't default to just shoving or folding most of my range. Certainly you should be inducing wider than just KK+.

Looking over my 76s open - I think with the smaller ante it's actually pretty marginal, but it somewhat helps that the stacks behind me are all significantly deeper.

Once you raise you are definitely raise/getting it in as long as it's a HU pot. I think it's right on the border between an open and a shove: I would always open and not shove 88+ and only shove 55-