Copy and pasted from my thread cos it's so damn good... This discussion stemmed from a hand posted on 2p2 where someone 3bshove 26s at 26bb eff stacks. My original assumption was that it was lol bad, oh how little i know.... First an ev calculation to show 62s can be a profitable shove @26bb eff given the right criteria all you need to do is use the EV calc i've mentioned in that c/r article and plug in the proper variables for this situation. ev calc for this one:fwiw i've spoken to Phmerc and he said that villain in this hand was opening 100% over a decent sample at this stack depth. just for arguments sake though, let's call it 85% (and just to be safe that he isn't embellishing his read a bit).so 2600 stx facing a raise to t100, 62s in bb we jamvillain calls 3bet shoves with an approx range of: 44+,A7s+,KQs,A8o+,KQoso with an 85% pfr and 13.4% total hand calling range - we have 83.9% fold equity with our 3bet shove preflop.83.9% of the time we win t100.16.1% of the time we get called and have 30.7% equity. all the chips are 2600. 2600 * .307 = 798.2. that's like losing 1300 - 798.2 = 501.8 chips from the start of the hand. 83.9% of the time we win t100. 16.1% of the time we lose t501.8. (0.839)(100) + (.161)(-501.8) = 83.9 - 80.78 = +3.12 chips. So on average, we win 3.12 chips from the start of the hand. Considering folding is -50, and flatting is almost certainly worse than folding - shoving is clearly the most +ev option.With the right variables in place, a lot of different things can be profitable in this game.  So then my second question was why all in 3bet and not non all in 3b... regarding nai3b vs jamming 62s:good points, for sure. it just surprised me how bad everyone thought jamming 62s was.i'm sure this wasn't Phmerc's throught process, and he could prob do a little better w this strat but this is what i would do with my 3b bluffing range vs a thinking 100% opener...first: the very low suited connectors don't have as much postflop playability that most people think they do - 53s 52s 62s 73s. playing postflop with these hands in a nai3b pot when called is going to be slightly more difficult than with more playable hands like Q4s T4s 85s 95s.versus someone who is opening 80%+ at this stack depth, and esp in Phmerc's case a 100% opener, it's really important to have a 3bet bluffing range at all stack sizes - whether its nai or jams.the problem with just nai3b all of our bluffs vs a thinking player at 23-30bb stx (merge stacks ftw) is that vs a wide opener, there are a lottt of hands that are +ev 3bet bluffs - and until villain adjusts his opening range we want to be able to play all of them. if our 3bets are getting called a decent amount (maybe 40%ish or more) - as long as villain hasnt tighened his opening range, it would be best to just start jamming the 3bet bluffing hands with worse postflop playability.if we just jam all of our 3bet bluffs at 26 stx, like im assume Phmerc is doing, it's def +ev but almost certainly leaving some ev on the table as nai3b has a lower risk/reward and still lots of fe - if villain is folding >60% of the time, nai3b each hand worth bluffing is maxEV.if villain is calling 3bets somewhere between 35-50% of  the time (this would be slightly wide considering a 100% opening range), i would do something like this:i would 3bet jam the range that has less postflop playability: 52s 73s 63s J2s type stuff. i would nai 3bet the more playable bluffing range: 85s K4s Q5s T4s type stuff. if villain is calling nai3bets more than 50%ish, i would just start overbet shoving all the bluffs vs a 100% opener. just remember that someone who calls 60% of nai3bs w a 100% opening range is probably the time to call overbet shoves a little wider than the villain described in Phmerc's example.**the %s necessary for nai3b vs jamming fold equity i used are just my intuitive feel for it. i haven't attempted to work out the #s, but i'm sure it's a close assessment.the main point is that folding these type hands is worse than a nai3b or a jam. as long as our villain is opening this wide, we should never fold 62s.honestly i didn't  consider the nai3b when analyzing the hand. i just got so caught up in the 2p2 jam/fold debate haha. in-game, i would definitely nai3b as my standard, esp vs a thinking player - i'd expect thinking players to fold a good amount more than a fish to a nai3b obv.  A side note regarding sizing with nai3b bluffs  ya 90-100 is good depending on stacks/your hand. 80-85 is basically never going to be +ev imo, can't imagine someone folding to it much but i dont play on stars so maybe im wrong haha. i just know on merge when i 3bet from 100 to 200 it gets called a ton more than 100 to 225 or 250.40-120 effects your perceived range by you appearing more committed to calling a jam. this doesn't mean it's good as a bluff, bc even if villain respects the size - the bigger size has to get more folds than a smaller size bc we risked more, so even if fold out some of villains range that would call t90 or 100 - villain is correctly folding those hands bc of our inc in sizing. 40-120 is good with hands like KQ/KJ bc it will still get flatted by the type hands that KQ/KJ dominate, so our postflop expectation with those hands will be maximized.