-
20bb effective spots from SB with suited Ax
This is kind of a combo hand history/theory combo question (I’m going to cross-post on Discord too). I took a break from playing for a few weeks over the holidays, but I have been regularly studying. I’ve noticed that I’ve been struggling with ~20bb effective stacks from the small blind, especially with Ax suited hands (AT-A2). I have access to Range Trainer Pro and Floptimal for preflop study, and here’s the thing, this is a spot where they diverge pretty radically. With an EP open and holding A9-A2 suited in the small blind, Floptimal advocates for a pure flat. RTP likes shoving the wheel versions (A5-A3) and flatting the AT-A6; A2 versions. I’ve been tending to overshove this spot with most of these holdings and it has derailed a bunch of deeper runs of mine lately, so I’m trying to study this spot a lot more. What is your approach in these spots, and with the hands that you do flat here, what is your approach postflop?
-
6 Replies
-
Checked this scenario on Odin as well. Interestingly the results are somewhere in between Floptimal and RTP. A2,A3,A6-A9 are pure calls. A4 60% call, 40% shove, A5 54% call, 46% shove. AT 24% call, 76% shove.
I tend to play these spots as a call for the most part, although I will often shove A5 and AT which seems in line with the solvers (esp if I think the BB is aggressive and likely to squeeze) These are vs a 2X raise so vs a larger raise, I lean more towards a shove/fold
-
I love shoving the suited wheels from the SB against LP opens but against EP it’s suicidal. I don’t understand the difference between the various programs – aren’t they all GTO solvers and, if so, shouldn’t they be spitting out the same results?
-
A Solvers output is COMPLETELY dependent on the input. A small change of range by simplifying, or a change of bet size, or number of bet sizes all make a difference.
The absolute biggest problem with solvers is that your opponent more than likely isn’t playing the range you have given them, let alone you playing the range you have given yourself at the same frequencies.-
Sure, but I’m assuming he’s inputting the same variables into each program. Seems strange that the same inputs would lead to different outputs between programs.
-
Odin has no inputs. Everything is already solved and it picks the closest answer, often with 5 or 6 bet sizes. It has a built-in timer to prevent in game use.
PIO doesn’t do preflop, but you can enter the pot size on the flop and adjust the accuracy of the solve.
Same with GTO+ for less money.
Monker does preflop and multiway but is expensive and gear intensive.I don’t know how either RTP or Floptimal work, but some only use 1755 flops instead of 22,100, some only solve to 3% accuracy, etc., all to compromise between accuracy, speed, and size of files.
-
-
-
-
I’ve got an app called “Preflop+”. It is not a solver, but a database of pre-solved hands. It assumes a 2.5 BB open and I have it on a 12.5% ante. At 20 BB effective with an open from UTG1 it says anything less an A-10 suited is a negative EV shove (A9 =-0.17). It says anything less than AQ suited is a negative EV call (AJ=-0.09). Seems pretty tight, but if UTG1 is actually only opening what is in the GTO ranges, it is probably fairly accurate.
My own limited experience is that I find if I shove with anything less than A9 and get called, I’m usually behind to a pair or a higher Ace. (A9 suited is roughly 30% against AJ off, and a slight underdog to any pair). I guess the question is how much of that is made up for by the times when I don’t get called (which is more relevant in a cash game I guess). In a tournament I guess it becomes an ICM question. Seems to hurt more when you lose your tournament life!
Log in to reply.