I am looking at total ranges. Obviously there are many worse scenarios than facing a PP and an Ax. Given we hold an Ace what are the chances they both actually have Ax though? I'd swag less than 20%. Why is it worst case to think about how 3 ranges interact? Given that, what else is everyone shoving with? Isn't the most likely answer a PP? This is literally the most common spot I run into in a 3 way all in although my tournament experience is admittedly limited. My only point was that if one of the Vs blocks an Ace or a Q and the other holds a PP it's not as much of a super snap slam dunk jam is many are painting it to be. But maybe my limited sample isn't indicative of what is most common. Just sharing food for thought. At any rate, it's more constructive to disagree with my ranges and provide your own ranges based on experience or math rather than just call my ranging "loosing thinking".
So are we just assuming the involved players' ranges are the average range for players in their position and therefore concluding +EV based on that? No consideration for depth or the tendencies of the players themselves. A loose agro CO that raises and gets shoved on by a reg SB who has probably been bullied by the CO for a while? Plus the SB is still at 20bb so not really at the point where they will be push-shoving.
I think what might be going on here is simply not understanding how thorough and useful the tools we have available to us are. Tools like ICMizer, PioSOlver and PokerStove absolutely account for card removal when showing how ranges interact and the resulting equities.
I'm sorry if my phrase "losing thinking" offended you. It is not meant to suggest you are a loser....it is how my friends and I who talk a lot of poker describe a situation where we identify a leak not in our friend's technical game play but in the way they are thinking about the spot.
In this instance, I think the way you are approaching building the ranges is a much bigger problem than whether or not you actually guess the ranges correctly. guessing ranges is whatever, you learn with experience and nobody is every truly correct all the time. It's not an exact science and it's not necessary to be precise.
But the way you approach it should be done systematically.
When you say something like "We hold an ace so how likely are they to hold an Ace as well?" illustrates that perhaps you just don't understand how powerful these tools are. For instance when you tell ICMizer you hold AsQs it reduces available combinations of AK from 16 to 12. it does the same thing with AJ and AT. it does not remove those hands from the range, it simply diminishes them in relation to other hands. same with our Qs. other Qx remains in the ranges just less of it....so available combinations of QQ in villain's range goes from 6 to 3....but QQ is still very much there. as is AJ.
So when you ask Gab to instead run the calc with just pocket pairs because you don't think it's likely villain has Ax because we hold Ax....you are overengineering the spot to the point that you will inhibit your learning and ability to think about these spots in the most +EV way (winning thinking).
much like in math class....setting up the problem correctly is often harder than just solving it.
Same with guessing ranges. the NASH ranges it spits out are absolutely based on position and every remaining stack size. This is a precice range. Now, exploitively we can adjust that based on what we think of our opponent "he is looser or tighter than NASH here and by this much" that's all guesswork and nobody gets that part correct all the time we just do our best estimations. But HOW we think about the situation before we arrive at the part where we are changing ranges absolutely matters. If we let you jump to the bottom and start removing things from ranges without understanding the top part of what I wrote...we aren't doing you any favors.
A
