Again, for people who love the theory angle of it, the OP should be super delicious. For people who get confused about this kind of stuff, I still think you can understand a lot of it, but I'll also post a detailed list of recommendations for how to play certain hands from the small blind readless, in easy to read format. Remember, though, that 10-15bb deep play is all about exploiting your opponent's tendencies, so there will never be "here's what is optimal always".

So, for example, here's a pretty good approximation of some decent standard ranges at this stack depth: There's a lot of questions that should arise from this. I think my next step for this thread will be to answer a bunch that I anticipate. Go ahead and post your questions, too. This is the bread and butter of my historical success 10-15bb deep from the small blind - hands shift between ranges based on stack size and opponent tendencies, but 12bb readless provides a decent snapshot, I think.

ROFL Q&A 1. Wow! This looks so cool. Is it a new equilibrium? Is it balanced?   Some aspects of our range are definitely balanced – our minraising range, for example, despite having all of our monsters, also has a ton of junk in it. Similarly, while the openjamming range has a lot of suited connectors in it, it also has a good amount of Ax and pocket pairs. The biggest thing that makes this not close to an equilibrium is our limping range – it's all stuff that's folding to a shove. That's obviously highly exploitable. However, remember one of the most important axioms of poker: If you want to exploit your opponent, you have to be exploitable. Maximum money comes from exploitable strategies. Force your opponent to adjust and start jamming over your limps wide, and then re-adjust in response to that. I will note, though, that this strategy only calls for limping once every 6 buttons or so – your opponent is unlikely to feel like he's getting limped to death.  2. Why are some hands openshoves and other hands limps or minraise/calls, despite having the exact same expectation when jamming?   54s and K2s are very different hands than J7s and Q9o, despite having the same expectation when going all-in. The latter duo plays much better in limped pots, whereas K2s and 54s don't have the luxury of that alternative. It all goes back to the main point: We should compare the expectation of plays against the expectation of the next best option. That's why looking to NASH for most of these decisions can lead you astray.  3. Are you sure about these ranges as standard? I would play a certain hand differently readless. Am I wrong?   No, you're not wrong, but let's talk about it. There's a lot of wiggle room for a lot of these hands – if you want to limp JTo or minraise/fold 95s, I'm not going to argue with you. However, if you think openjamming K3o, Q2s, or 97o is best readless 12bb deep, there are strong reasons to believe it isn't, so let's get into them. Same goes for if you want to limp 53s readless.  4. Are you sure the openjamming range isn't too weak? It seems like there are a lot of weak hands in that range and no big hands. Can't our opponent exploit us by calling wider?   It is a little weak – the big blind is correct to open up his calling range wider in response to this jamming range. And that's what you'll see a lot at nosebleeds – people call openshoves pretty wide 11-14bb deep because of the ranges they represent. If you feel like your opponent has picked up on how much you're exploiting his fairly tight but standard calling range and starts to open up, there's one pretty easy adjustment you can make: Start openjamming your strong Ax hands as well. Those hands have pretty mediocre inducing value regardless because of how poorly they play postflop if you get flatted, and the value from openjamming goes way up if your opponent is calling jams wide.  5. It seems like a bunch of small differences. Are you sure this even really matters that much? Aren't there more important things to be worrying about?  Keep in mind that NASH is -EV against the NASH calling range from this stack depth. People should still have positive expectation using most strategies, but I think my expectation has been very good, with EV-adjusted winnings from the small blind 10-15bb deep at +$27,000 in equity since December. That's just from this stack depth, just from the small blind, and EV adjusted. It's about 8bb/100 over a huge sample. I'm not sure what other people's are numbers are, but I think those show some pretty strong proof that the expectation from having ranges like this can be really good. It goes back to the Ed Miller link in the Essential Reading List – sure, it can be hard to get motivated about improving in certain situations by 0.2 big blinds. However, because these situations constantly come up in endgame play, your leaks get magnified over time, and you lose a lot of money by not playing optimally. 6. How does your approach change as stack depths get shorter?   The expectation of your marginal hands goes up significantly and your opponent will jam wider over limps, so many more hands become openshoves. You can and should still limp hands that have mediocre jamming expectation but play decently postflop, such as Q5o, T7o, and J7o 10bb deep. In general, people are willing to get it in wider from the big blind, so minraise/folding becomes less attractive as well, although I think you absolutely should have a minraise/folding range against most opponents 10bb deep. Getting flatted is even more of a disaster with Ax, so those hands can become openshoves as well. Basically, the ranges squeeze tighter and start to more closely approximate the shove or fold +EV equilibrium for the small blind 8bb deep or less.  7. How does your approach change as stack depths get deeper?   15 big blinds deep can be a haven for limping, given how much the big blind has to risk to jam over them. More hands on the openshove list become limps or raise/folds (the better the hand flops, the more likely it is to be a limp. T7s, for example, is a great hand to limp 15bb deep. Some hands that were strong enough to raise/call, like K7o, aren't strong enough against most opponents anymore, and move to the limping range. Low Ax and weak pocket pairs are still great jamming hands even 15bb deep. Against opponents who aren't willing to reshove wide, it's very important to pound your opponent with minraises 13-15bb deep – this simply prints money, especially when you do it with a polarized range and keep limping your middling hands.  8. How do you adjust against a passive opponent who calls about this range when you openshove?  Against a passive player who plays meekly in limped pots, the openshoving range goes down a ton. Even though the expectation for jamming remains unchanged, the expectation for limping is significantly increased. Pretty much everything middling in green becomes either a limp or a minraise/fold, with most of them being limps. Ax and small pocket pairs remain in the openjamming range. How much to raise/fold depends on your opponent's VPIP from the big blind – most of the value is from preflop folds, so make sure you're not raising too much into a station.  9. How do you adjust against a very aggressive player who is 3bet jamming and shoving over limps a wide margin, in addition to calling openshoves with this range?  Cut down on your minraise/folding range, widen your minraise/calling range for inducing, openjam more hands that have -0.2 to -0.4 expectation from jamming because the other options aren't nearly as appealing. Love life when you're getting dealt hands, hate life when you're card dead.  10. How does this change against an opponent with a tighter or a wider calling range?   Pretty much as you might expect – a tighter calling range means more hands become jams, and a wider calling range means that you should consider limping or minraise/folding more of the marginal hands in our jamming range instead.

Come on, I know some of you still have a lot more questions than the conversation I had with myself. A few of you have told me privately you think this is gold, but I think it has a lot to it that's fleshed out a lot better with discussion.

1. I think 77 is where the borderline is, yeah. So there's two reasons why K7 is a better minraise/call than 66.Firstly, K7 has better equity against added stuff of the wider 3bet jamming range. Against K5s-K2s,Q8s-Q4s,J7s+,T6s+,95s+,85s+,75s,K7o-K4o,Q7o+,J7o+,T8o+, a range we don't have him calling an openjam with, K7o does about 3 percentage points better than 66.Secondly, I think K7o actually plays better postflop than 66. Our opponent's strategy when they flat is going to be to play mostly fit or fold, and try to hit a pair. That strategy plays much better against 66 (if you hit a pair, you almost always have the best hand) than K7.

2. How do we adjust those ranges vs some1 who flats a lot preflop, doesn't 3bet-shove very much but plays quite aggro post?Ax hands become more jams pre. After that, it gets a little weird, because it depends on how spewy he's playing in limped pots. You definitely want to minraise stuff that flops well. I'd of course cut down big time on my minraise/folding range.

It depends how much they are 3bet shoving. Less 3bet shoving is better for minraise/folding, expanded calling range from the bottom side of it (e.g. if they're going to call 96o) makes folding better with your 54o. You can limp the more limpable stuff - Q4o, J5o, T6o, 96o, etc, in response to this, but generally limping T2s isn't going to be best.To calculate 3bet jamming taking cardremoval into effect, you can use CardRunners' EV software or I believe ProPokerTools does it as well. I wouldn't get THAT bogged down in the numbers, though - you can always make a manual adjustment after you do it without card removal, and just use that to give you a general sense of it.

"How do I adjust against people who have an extremely tight flatting range, but a fairly wide 3bet-jamming range ? For instance, someone who's calling <15% and 3bet-jamming >35%. First adjustment is to remove all these raise/folding hands.  When we get shallower, is it a good idea to openjam these according to Chubokov ?"We can still raise/fold a lot of junk if the BB isn't playing that many hands.Seriously. Forget Chubokov. It is doing awful things for your endgame thinking. Forget you ever heard of it. Just think about NASH and jamming wider than NASH or tighter than NASH based on your opponent's tendencies.

CHUBOKOV IS NOT A STRATEGY. We never ever adopt a plan of "jam according to Chubokov".

Wow hadn't read the next two posts yet either... :pIf your opponent is jamming over limps quite wide, start trapping more often, and raise/fold or openfold more often with those marginal holdings. Jam based on NASH and whether your opponent is calling tighter than the NASH calling range or wider.

You're not limp/calling 3xes a ton anyway. Basically just start limping AA-JJ always, minraise more of your marginals, you can also throw in some KJ/KQ/QJs type hands to limp and get it in vs a raise.