Preflop equity question

[SeanC]

Hey,

What is the general rule when using your equity vs. your opponent's range in tricky PF situations? For instance, you raise to $100 in mid position with AQ and a LAG re-raises you 3x. Against a TAG's range, this is a fold (unless you have some kind of read or w/e), but at what point does the RR range become wide enough to make this a profitable call?

[Gonso]

Sean,

It's not so much a TAG's or LAG's range as it is the range of that particular TAG or LAG and what speed they're playing, and how they're perceiving you image-wise. A TAG doesn't need a big hand to 3-bet you if you've been aggressive lately.

Also, if their 3-bet range is wide enough, you should probably consider 4-betting more than calling, especially if he has position. To me, if someone makes a habit of flat calling 3-bets preflop, it defines their hand a lot of the time (AQ, 88 things like that tends to show up here).

If I'm HU and think AQ is ahead of the 3-bettors range, almost invariably I'll 4-bet. You have to be careful about stack sizes though, I'm talking about 100bb and up.

Your question, specifically, 'is what does his range have to be to make flat calling a 3-bet with AQ profitable'. Unless he's all-in, there's no way to answer that. The way you play AQ against this guy postflop might be far more profitable than the way I would play it.

If he were all in, you can compare the pot odds you're getting, and then see how much equity your hand has against his range (approximated using PokerStove, or Holdem Ranger).

In the case where you're getting 1-to-1 odds to call an all in, AQ (offsuit) is just better than this range:

88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo

The order Pokerstove ranks these hands is by showdown strength, so the numbers don't reflect an opponents range. For example, he might 3-bet with 77 or 98s more often than A9s or something in the listed range. It's just a general idea.

[SeanC]

[ QUOTE ]
Sean,

It's not so much a TAG's or LAG's range as it is the range of that particular TAG or LAG and what speed they're playing, and how they're perceiving you image-wise. A TAG doesn't need a big hand to 3-bet you if you've been aggressive lately.

Also, if their 3-bet range is wide enough, you should probably consider 4-betting more than calling, especially if he has position. To me, if someone makes a habit of flat calling 3-bets preflop, it defines their hand a lot of the time (AQ, 88 things like that tends to show up here).

If I'm HU and think AQ is ahead of the 3-bettors range, almost invariably I'll 4-bet. You have to be careful about stack sizes though, I'm talking about 100bb and up.

Your question, specifically, 'is what does his range have to be to make flat calling a 3-bet with AQ profitable'. Unless he's all-in, there's no way to answer that. The way you play AQ against this guy postflop might be far more profitable than the way I would play it.

If he were all in, you can compare the pot odds you're getting, and then see how much equity your hand has against his range (approximated using PokerStove, or Holdem Ranger).

In the case where you're getting 1-to-1 odds to call an all in, AQ (offsuit) is just better than this range:

88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo

The order Pokerstove ranks these hands is by showdown strength, so the numbers don't reflect an opponents range. For example, he might 3-bet with 77 or 98s more often than A9s or something in the listed range. It's just a general idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Gonso,

Thanks for the reply.

Ah, I think I misused the TAG/LAG terms as I meant how this person specifically is playing.

Good point on 4-betting, I totally agree.

In my AQ example, because we wouldn't be all-in, how does showdown equity fit in to PF decisions? Does it at all? In some of Townsend's videos, he'll remark (PF) how his hand is good against his opponent's range so he's going to call. I'm just wondering how he relates his hand's "value" to the PF bet. Or is he simply thinking with "my hand has good equity against his range, so let's see a flop and go from there"? I hope that made sense, heh.

Yeah, I know that PS's % ranges are based on SD strength. I've found them fairly accurate with most weak players though.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
In my AQ example, because we wouldn't be all-in, how does showdown equity fit in to PF decisions? Does it at all? In some of Townsend's videos, he'll remark (PF) how his hand is good against his opponent's range so he's going to call. I'm just wondering how he relates his hand's "value" to the PF bet. Or is he simply thinking with "my hand has good equity against his range, so let's see a flop and go from there"? I hope that made sense, heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

When those guys are evaluating a hand against a range, what they're evaluating is how a hand PLAYS against that range, not the showdown value. A hand like A7 might have a lot of equity against a villians 3-bet range, but its very hard to play (esp OOP) and you'll be forced to fold it when it's best often enough, and so you won't get the full showdown value.

A hand with less showdown value, say 98s, might PLAY better against person's range, because you can often win more when ahead and lose less when you're beat.

[SeanC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my AQ example, because we wouldn't be all-in, how does showdown equity fit in to PF decisions? Does it at all? In some of Townsend's videos, he'll remark (PF) how his hand is good against his opponent's range so he's going to call. I'm just wondering how he relates his hand's "value" to the PF bet. Or is he simply thinking with "my hand has good equity against his range, so let's see a flop and go from there"? I hope that made sense, heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

When those guys are evaluating a hand against a range, what they're evaluating is how a hand PLAYS against that range, not the showdown value. A hand like A7 might have a lot of equity against a villians 3-bet range, but its very hard to play (esp OOP) and you'll be forced to fold it when it's best often enough, and so you won't get the full showdown value.

A hand with less showdown value, say 98s, might PLAY better against person's range, because you can often win more when ahead and lose less when you're beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense, thanks.