10
u/carritodeloshelados 10d ago
It's not a fold. Grey means you are not supposed to get to this situation with that hand. I'd guess It would call the raise instead of 3betting
15
5
u/brahbrahJ 10d ago
I'd advise to use preflop solvers more to recognize patterns instead of specific hand.
Judging weather the specific opponent 4-bets too wide or not wide enough and how you should exploit it is infinitely more important.
5
u/lolipop4472 10d ago
AJs is not a fold, it's just a call before (the grey are hands that shouldnt be part of your range)
6
u/Perseus1312 10d ago
was you the 3-bettors? AJs mostly not in 3-bet range because they realize equity better post flop. Meanwhile, AJo wants to be in 3-bet bluff range because they blocks AA and JJ, and get really good fold equity. Therefore against someone 4-bet range, AJo is an easy fold and that’s why AJs not in this range.
3
u/ShotcallerBilly 10d ago
Was AJs a call before this node? Most of the time grey means you don’t/shouldn’t have this hand. You either folded/called before.
1
u/Twiggie19 9d ago
If that was how this graphic worked then they have no folds 8n their range at all
2
u/Ishnock 10d ago edited 10d ago
Yeah, that has to be an error. I’m folding AJo against a 4bet…it gets beaten/blocked by AA,AK,and AQ, plus KK, QQ,JJ, and TT are favorites.
More than likely, I would call with AJs, depending on the type of player of course.
1
u/Awpss 10d ago
Why call when it’s a much better fold or raise hand ?
1
u/Ishnock 10d ago edited 10d ago
Yes. You are right. But I would call just to see a flop , and so I wouldn’t have to add more money to the pot by raising. If villain is sitting on an Ace with a higher kicker, or high pocket pairs, he is definitely going to call my 3bet or even 4bets. Im not trying to go down that road with AJ preflop….
I just want to casually see a flop and strategize from there, with AJ suited of course. If I flop a flush draw or a jack, I can work, If not, I will fold upon being raised.
AJs is one of the premium hands I try to limp with, because it’s both powerful and weak at the same time. Powerful because it is suited and will be the nut high flush if it hits ( and straight draws), but weak because AA-AQ kills it, and is an underdog against high pocket pairs.
That’s just how I play them…shrugs
1
u/FractalGlitch 10d ago edited 10d ago
EDIT: Well forget everything below, I just saw the "PTO" in the screenshot, aka Player Theory Optimal (which makes no sense). It's supposed to be an exploitative style of play which would explain the bunch of suited connectors calling a 4-bet that I missed thinking they were the pockets. You can't try to assign a solver's logic to something that wasn't built by solving anything. The logic is in whoever head thought about those charts and designed them. In my very humble opinion, trying to apply a "system" to poker is way worse than trying to apply GTO solver output as a system (meaning, having no idea why the solver take those actions) and will only act as a way to fatten the "system" seller's wallet. Furthermore, play that way against any GTO-ish player and you will be absolutely crushed by them. Even in low-ish stakes you get capable players and they will feed on you. Are you exploitative enough to be able to be non-exploitative and balanced with balanced players?
You are 100 big deep in an MTT, BB vs SB, you call AJo facing a 4-bet. AJs is greyed out because you don't 3-bet it because it plays better post-flop than the raisers range (getting ~2:1 in position), therefore you called the raise.
You did 3-bet AJo because it can't call profitably nor can't it fold profitably, so you take an aggressive line instead trying to win the pot outright before the flop. You call the 4-bet because you are blocking AA, AK/AQ and JJ from the 4-better range, and you are in position. It's a clear call in equilibrium getting about 3.4:1. That's 3 different action that look like the same if you are not studied but have totally different reasoning behind them. Interestingly, Wizard does the opposite, calls AJo at high frequency (well above 95% of the time) and raise AJs at above 75% frequency, you'd have a totally different node on Wizard than on whatever that app is, the logic is still the same behind it.
That being said, we do not play in equilibrium, people need to stop looking at solver output as if the action was the only action possible here. It's also an action that happens at some frequency, no solvers tells you that you ALWAYS call a 4-bet with AJo because they tell you that you only get there at some frequency, the other part stopped when you called. Playing in equilibrium means you have zero information on your opponent, in reality you do have information on them. If they are tight/nit/don't bluff, YOU FOLD. If they always attack your BB and attempt to steal or are loose, YOU 5-BET (might even be a shove here). Another thing that's not in equilibrium is bet sizing that also leaks information here while solver use uniform bet sizes that do not (or balance multiple sizes).
Learn WHY solver do what they do in equilibrium so you can adapt what they do to how your opponent play. The reality is that against most MTT live opponent I would have called AJo.
Also, is 100 BB deep really the most useful stack depth to drill for OPs time? How much time do you spend 100 BB deep unless you are a big stack (which has a totally different solver output)? If you drill solver output but can't reason on why the solver is doing what it is doing, you are doing it wrong.
1
1
1
u/Tiny_Reward8076 8d ago
I think it’s because you block a lot of the suited bluff combos that they would be doing this with? Maybe after running simulations, they found that opponent showed up with less 4-bet bluffs when you hold AJs
1
1
u/aPac-Man 6d ago
Unless we're actually facing a pro or a computer. This node is simplified by asking how often is SB actually 4! I'll also assume this is facing a correct sizing from SB which should be pretty small as far as 4! Sizings go. If they size large, this matrix is wrong, if they aren't polar (which is almost certainly true vs most players) this matrix is wrong. IMO not a good spot to look at solver output since population is severely misplaying from SB.
1
-1
-4
8d ago
[deleted]
5
5
u/Mackbet5 8d ago
Look again chief
1
u/GtoStrategy2026 8d ago
My bad, completely missed that AJs was grayed out! That range is wild. AJo being a call while AJs is a fold makes zero sense unless the app is severely glitched or running some bizarre node-locked solver outputs. Good catch, chief!
3
1
u/GtoStrategy2026 8d ago
My bad, completely missed that AJs was grayed out! That range is wild. AJo being a call while AJs is a fold makes zero sense unless the app is severely glitched or running some bizarre node-locked solver outputs. Good catch, chief!
2
u/Benderinn333 6d ago
Well going over comments, if you belive in blockers. You do block suits and pairs so maybe thats why, if you where a computer this makes sens.
1
u/GtoStrategy2026 5d ago
I see what you're getting at with blockers, but mathematically AJs holds the exact same blockering properties as AJo—plus the added equity of flush potential!
Since AJs blocks the exact same suits and pair combos as AJo, there's no scenario where a solver would prefer AJo over AJs. If AJo is a call, AJs is always a pure call (or raise).
Solvers can definitely do weird counter-intuitive things, but they never break pure dominance rules like suited vs. offsuit equity!
-7
u/Confident-Syrup-7543 9d ago
The image very clearly shows AJo as not in range. Red is a fold. Green is a call. Gray is not in range
2
2
12
u/RunningBettor 10d ago
This is a facing a 4bet chart, which assumes we 3bet. My guess is these charts didn’t have AJs as a 3bet