iamvariance

I'm having difficulty adjusting to ultra tight villains.

Sounds dumb but I haven't been doing great against these types.

They VPIP 60-70% IP and 3x the button.

What adjustments are you making?

I'm having difficulty organizing my thoughts on this subject.

Game is HU and rake per hand is 10bb/100.
Room policy is "no flop, no drop."

Because you only pay rake when seeing a flop, it is preferable to open 3 big blinds.

However, you face either of these opponents:

1) Player A, against a 3x, defends 40% of his big blinds.
2) Player B 3bets 50%.

Both players give you incentive to decrease your opening size. However, if you start minraising with a wide range and either player adapts, all players are now probably playing a -EV game. It can take a long time before your stats suggest your opponent adjusted. By the time you realize it, the rake potentially kills any positive win rate you may have had.

So what's the solution? Should you take advantage of an opponent's perceived leak and risk playing a -EV game by minraising? Should you stick with the original plan of 3x-or-folding and exploit in other ways?
I have my own hypothesis but I'll wait before influencing.

My stats: https://i.imgur.com/3dk7zoN.png

I'm paying $USD 0.11362 in rake per hand. That's 22.72bb / 100.

Does that number seem right? I have about 55% rakeback so that's effectively 10.22bb/100.

My preflop stats are probably mediocre and contributing to the extra rake, so I'm wondering if that's a normal rake figure or if my playstyle is the reason I pay so much?

Edit: This is partypoker 50PL. 5% rake capped at $1.

Hello RIO,

I see Phil and his high stakes opponents play the "3x or limp" style from the button.
The argument I read against minraising 100% is your opponent can defend everything.
Why does that matter? That would be like saying if you limp 100%, your opponent can check back 100%. It's not an EV-based objection.

The "you want to push equity" argument does not seem valid either. Raw equity is correlated to EV, true. But raw equity does not translate to implied odds. AA has an equity advantage against every hand, but you don't shovel money on the river with a pair of Aces. Maybe the argument should be you want to build pots with hands with good implied odds?

Lastly, based on my first 5,000 hands playing HU PLO, random opponents don't defend wide enough and don't 3bet enough, which weakens the case for limping.

So my argument is this: for most people, you are better off playing raise or fold preflop. It is simpler, it is better exploitatively and there is no EV-based or theoretical argument to favor 3x-or-limp.

Who objects?

I'm a very experienced HU and Short-Handed NLHE player transitioning to HU PLO (since it's all the rage these days). I find it difficult to choose which study tool to purchase. I heard a lot about PokerJuice and MonkerSolver. Could someone chime in and help me decide what I should be using? To be clear, I need help for fundamentals, which I find confusing despite many hours watching Phil Galfond and other HU PLO pro videos. Is 9643r an open fold in the SB, I would limp it, but who knows you guys? It's been a very fun, confusing and humbling experience so far.

Examples
Preflop - SB VPIP ranges and BB ISO & defend ranges (3bet or flat)
Flop - SB Cbet and BB call and c/r

I'd also like a ready-made HUD recommendation if possible. I currently use PT4.

Thank you very much for the help in advance.