TAG or NIT

[Stacks]

• Opponents range is equal or ahead of us, so we must fold to c-bets on missed flops.
• Opponents range is equal or ahead of us, so we are only ever looking to play a small pot even on flops we hit.
• Because we are in MP we may see more callers behind leaving us without iniative and out of position in a multiway pot, further weakening the relative hand strength of our TPTK.
• Better to get out preflop without putting any chips in, than face an awkward situation, as there are plenty of other opportunities to profit in this game.

(1) Opponents range is equal or ahead of us is likely untrue. A relatively
'standard' range of {66+,AQ+} leaves us with 48% equity. It's absolutely reasonable to assume villains are opening wider than that. Sometimes opening KQs, AJ, suited connectors, all pairs, etc. But yes, it is dependent on the villain (obviously). But without reads, I would assume AK is ahead of their range.

Also, if it's true that our hand is equal or behind his range, that isn't all that has to be considered. Given we will be acting in position, this increases the value of our hand, while reducing the value of his. We can stand a bit of reduced equity if we are IP. The same goes for if we feel we are more skilled than villain and less likely to make postflop mistakes.

(2) Also not true. On a lot of flops we do hit, he will have a good portion of second best hands. AK on a Kxx flop, he could have numerous worse pocket pairs that pay off 1-2 (or more if he's bad) streets, as well as any KQ hands he has. Same for Axx flops where he has AQ in his range.

(3) What about the times our call invites fish into the pot that increases the value of our top pair hands, since we can valuebet them relentlessly? What about the times our call invites light squeezes? Or the times our calls invite calls from players with dominated holdings (KJ/KQ/AJ/AT/AQ/KT/etc)?

(4) You are going to inevitably face awkward situations in poker. If they are profitable, you shouldn't be looking to avoid them, but understand them. If they are profitable, you should be willing to take the awkward spot, both because it makes you money and because you will become better for it.

He did say that he was playing an exclusively 2NL full ring strategy that would not work at any higher level and was for total beginners.

What makes 2nl different from other levels? It's that the player pool is on average worse, and more prone to making mistakes. If anything against an unknown this should lead to a competent hero playing a wider range of hands given his skill advantage is much more prominent.

any other game I'd probably advocate for reraising AK

In other games, it is entirely possible that the villain is less likely to make a mistake. Either less likely to play badly against hero's 3betting range, or less likely to play badly postflop should hero call. The worse, and more erratic/bad, the villains are the more inclined you should be to enter pots with them (as often as possible). As they are going to lose their money at some point, and you want as many opportunities for it to be you as possible.

being nitty seems like it can profit at 2NL.

Certainly it will be profitable. Because the villains will be too bad to realize our ranges are as tight as they are, and still make loads of mistakes. But it isn't just about profitability, it's about being as profitable as possible. We shouldn't look to fold AK here if it's profitable to play, simply because our AA/KK will be profitable in this spot.

[daviddem]

But it isn't just about profitability, it's about being as profitable as possible.

Not dwelling on the AK hand anymore, but generally speaking I think it is OK at these stakes to take all the fat value that is there for the picking, and pass on marginal or thin EV spots to lower overall variance.

Always trying to make the most profitable play, however thin value may be, will increase variance tremendously, and this may well be more detrimental to your overall situation and goals than the small extra EV.

Matter of fact, some EV spots are so thin that combined with the inevitable imperfection of reads and unpredictability of opponents at the micros, you might as well flip a coin.

With the low amount of hands I play, I consciously choose not to take spots which may slightly increase my win rate in the very long term while dramatically increasing my variance, for the simple reason that in the not-extremely-long term these plays may well translate into pretty steep losses or extended break even periods. Play around with this to see how badly variance is the enemy of the low volume player:

ev++ Poker Tools :: Poker Variance Simulator

[Stacks]

Not dwelling on the AK hand anymore, but generally speaking I think it is OK at these stakes to take all the fat value that is there for the taking, and pass on marginal or thin EV spots to lower overall variance.

I'm not disputing whether it's 'OK' or not, because it clearly is, I'm simply stating it's not best. And that it doesn't just come down to profitability. While passing on marginal or thin spots that are profitable for the sake of reducing variance isn't really a bad thing, the goal of poker is to make as much as possible. And at microstakes, especially 2nl, it's also to improve as a player and begin fixing the numerous leaks you have in your game. While tightening up will minimize losses should you make mistakes (while also reducing profits since you are missing out on profitable spots), it would be at the expense of learning and growing, which as stated I think it hugely important at 2nl.

Also, given the overall terrible nature of the player pool a lot of spots that arise that are marginal/thin (especially with regards to value) might be a bit more +EV than you expect due to just how often they make very large mistakes (and surprise us with the hands they call with).

Also, and I could be wrong, given the very high attainable winrates at microstakes, the negative variance assumed by 'marginal' spots can't be that much a hinderance on overall variance. Given we would be profiting so much in other areas, we should be able to take just a hint of marginality even if it does produce a bit more swings, well because we will be so far in the black anyways.