NL100 AKo 3bet pot

Hi!

I don't think you can 3bet AK versus a 11% opening range. What's the plan? Neither stack off nor calling 4bet seem like a good option.

As played, I would take a look at his 4betting range in these positions, but his range is super strong nonetheless so I would give up unimproved.

Originally posted by double2
Hi!

I don't think you can 3bet AK versus a 11% opening range. What's the plan? Neither stack off nor calling 4bet seem like a good option.

As played, I would take a look at his 4betting range in these positions, but his range is super strong nonetheless so I would give up unimproved.

I would call IP to keep the fish in. But 3bet is also +EV because he will continue with around 5%. Also he
Is isolating fish here probably wider
.

Originally posted by GingerKid

Originally posted by double2
Hi!

I don't think you can 3bet AK versus a 11% opening range. What's the plan? Neither stack off nor calling 4bet seem like a good option.

As played, I would take a look at his 4betting range in these positions, but his range is super strong nonetheless so I would give up unimproved.

I would call IP to keep the fish in. But 3bet is also +EV because he will continue with around 5%. Also he
Is isolating fish here probably wider
.

Missed the limper. Even so, I don't think we can 3bet. Against 11% I disagree you have a EV+ 3bet. Or at least is quite inferior to the EV of calling.

The worst case for us is if he stacks off only KK+ and folds everything else, and we don't know that he defends in this way, so we stack off our AKo and have 18% equity. In that case villain folds 92% vs 3bet, ignoring blocker effect. Off course with blocker effect it is even better EV. So EV in worst case is:

EV = FE * dead_money + (1-FE) * (equity * total_pot - remain_pot)
EV = 0.92 * 6.25 + 0.08 * (0.18 * 202.5 - 89)
EV = 1.55

If he defends only QQ+, AK and folds rest we have now 40% equity and also high FE, so it is even better.
The more hands he adds in defense range the higher our EV is. If he defends by calling 3bet, still we have equity advantage vs his defense range and positional advantage, initiative, so if we have similar postflop skills we will play it +EV.

So it should be clear that there is no way that he can play his 11% range vs our AK and that we have -EV 3bet.

I agree that calling 3bet might have higher EV than 3betting, but it depends on so much on combination of postflop skills of both players that it is impossible to calculate it. So basically it is almost like random guess based on a poker logic. The only thing you can do is to look in database how much profit you made by calling and how much by 3betting and then say for me calling works better. And if it works better for professional poker judge playing mid-stakes, doesn't mean that it works in the same way for people who post in forums and learn poker, playing NL100. Then we can make average EV from e.g. 10000 players from different limits, and if this average EV for calling AK is better then we can say statistically it is better to cold call AK than to 3bet, but I am not sure if something like this is done?

The disadvantage of calling AK is that in 3bet range we have only KK+ and bluffs. It is the range that is very cappt and easy to play against. Villian has no reason in that case to stack off KK, QQ, AK assuming you have balanced range
with KK+ as value.
So If I would choose to not 3bet AK, then I wouldn't have 3bet range at all, which is imo not optimal because you can't make use of bluffs preflop with 3bet, and you miss value by not 3betting premiums.
If villain has no idea about our range, then yeah who cares we can do whatever.

Thanks GingerKid for your analysis. Verry usefull.

I personaly like calling AKo most of the time, but in this case decided to 3bet because on this sample(3k hands) he is folding 55% to 3bet and calling 45%(20 hands) and has an overall 4bet range of 0.4%. So when he 4bets I just fold, and when he calls I am playing IP against a 5% range so its fine for me.

So basicaly my strategy is if he is folding alot to 3bets I just call.

GingerKid, you make some interesting points and for some I don't have good answers to give.

Yes, you demonstrated quite clearly that we have a profitable 3bet/5bet with AK, although this is not an heads up game and there's still 7 players left, which will decrease our EV, it will always suck when we get cold 4bet. And if people would cold 4bet QQ+/AK that will mean we will get cold 4bet about 15% of the time. So I would say that our 3bet with AK will be closer to 0 EV.

And I'm not sure we have an equity advantage versus villain call 3bet range, it will be very marginal at best. For instance, do you have a different opinion than me regarding this flop in particular?

We can't know for sure what is our EV of flatting, i doubt anyone has done that database analysis you're suggesting. What I do think is: I would rather flat AK and 3bet/5bet a hand we would open fold, like a 33, that has similar equity versus villain stack off range.

Originally posted by GingerKid
The disadvantage of calling AK is that in 3bet range we have only KK+ and bluffs. It is the range that is very cappt and easy to play against. Villian has no reason in that case to stack off KK, QQ, AK assuming you have balanced range
with KK+ as value.
So If I would choose to not 3bet AK, then I wouldn't have 3bet range at all, which is imo not optimal because you can't make use of bluffs preflop with 3bet, and you miss value by not 3betting premiums.

I don't think this is accurate. What exactly is the problem of 3betting KK+ and proper amount of bluffs? If villain decides to fold AK or QQ I definitely don't mind it at all.

And we can look it the other way, if we 3bet AK we end up with very small flatting range, so we might as well don't flat anything

Good discussion, it got me to think a lot

For instance, do you have a different opinion than me regarding this flop in particular?

I have similar opinion. Without knowing his 4bet range we dont know what to do postflop, but vs unknown it is fold because I expect KK+, AQ to 4bet so there are not many weaker on this flop.

If he would call AQ, KQs vs 3bet, then we can call turn and give up river.

if people would cold 4bet QQ+/AK that will mean we will get cold 4bet about 15% of the time

Oops, I totally missed that there are 7 players behind. This changes the things totally. I play only 6 max, I knew this is full ring, but somehow expected that there are max 3-4 players behind.

I am not sure if people 4bet cold AK, QQ and stack off vs those positions in full ring? in 6max I would fold AK, QQ vs 3bet from MP who is not too agro especially if there are players behind me.

If they 4bet cold QQ+, AK then it is worst case scenario. It is 2.5% range, so they will all fold:

0.97.5 ^ 7 = 84% (I guess you came to 15% 4bet similarly ? )

Well this is not completely accurate because we block premiums so there are like 30% less of them, so it will be around 4bet cold 88% of time when we include blocker effect.

We can calculate EV now for this. We fold vs 4bet cold, QQ+, AK range where we lose 11bb. If again we use EV for the worst case which I calculated:

EV_all_fold = FE * dead_money + (1-FE) * (equity * total_pot - remain_pot)

Then EV including all cases (when all fold and when not all fold), using probabilty that
all fold = 0.88:

EV = P_all_fold * EV_all_fold + (1-P_all_fold ) * (-11BB)
EV = 0.88 * 1.55BB + 0.12 * (-11bb)
EV = 0.04BB

So we make profit
Well it is the worst case scenario, where villian stacks off only AA, KK and we dont know it and go all in which will in reality super rarely happen, and also we assumed all players behind 4bet cold QQ+, AK which I am not sure is the case. Also if they are balanced they should have some bluffs in range, where AK will be +EV stack off vs their range. If they have AK+, QQ then we fold vs 4bet cold.
They need to have small % of bluffs to make our shove profitable with AK, which will then even increase our EV.

What exactly is the problem of 3betting KK+ and proper amount of bluffs? If villain decides to fold AK or QQ I definitely don't mind it at all.

if you have only KK+ as value, this is 12 combos, so you can use only around 16 combos bluffs depending on 4bet size.

The problem is that postflop you really cant rep many boards due to low number of combos which is especially problem deep. Lets say you choose to bluff with AQ

On Qxx, Axx boards your range will be very strong and villian doesnt have reason to defend weaker Ax and 2nd pairs, floats etc.
If board would be Kxx, then you dont hit it good, basically 9 combos value and 16 A high, so villian can easily defend, calling Kx blockers which will make your range bluff heavy. Similar is on lower boards.

If you would choose to bluff 67s-T9s, you have similar problems on low boards you hit weak pairs most of the time, and on boards like Txx, Jxx, Qxx, Kxx, Axx you are bluff heavy. Again assuming villian will call down with blocker hands which are top pairs.

Well I think we can agree that 3betting AKo in this spot is marginal.

So, let's settle with that.

Originally posted by GingerKid
if you have only KK+ as value, this is 12 combos, so you can use only around 16 combos bluffs depending on 4bet size.

The problem is that postflop you really cant rep many boards due to low number of combos which is especially problem deep. Lets say you choose to bluff with AQ

On Qxx, Axx boards your range will be very strong and villian doesnt have reason to defend weaker Ax and 2nd pairs, floats etc.
If board would be Kxx, then you dont hit it good, basically 9 combos value and 16 A high, so villian can easily defend, calling Kx blockers which will make your range bluff heavy. Similar is on lower boards.

If you would choose to bluff 67s-T9s, you have similar problems on low boards you hit weak pairs most of the time, and on boards like Txx, Jxx, Qxx, Kxx, Axx you are bluff heavy. Again assuming villian will call down with blocker hands which are top pairs.

I don't see this as a problem. Of course we hit some boards better than others, that doesn't mean we are doing something wrong. And you are making some assumptions which are not necessarily valid. Like the example of a low board, you say villain can call down light with blockers because our range is bluff heavy. I don't understand how he can do much about this, our value range crushes his and our bluff range has very decent equity against his bluffcatchers. If you are that worried about having too much AQ on Kxx, just use some KQ combos instead. And low boards are not a problem IMO.

If I were in the UTG...

I'd call the 3-bet with AA (1) KK(3) QQ(6) JJ(6) TT(6) AK(6) AQs(4) KQs(4). Versus that range, the 3-bettor is in trouble on many boards with AK.

I'd 4-bet/shove with AA(5) KK(3) AK(6). Not too bright for the 3-bettor.

I'd 4-bet/fold with AQo(12) KQo(12). This is only semi-nice for the 3-bet/shover because he didn't get it in with the best hand.

I'd fold right away to the 3-bet 52.4% of the time. No auto-profit.

Then, of course, if it goes 3-bet-call, then it's poker, and the 3-bettor has position

Originally posted by YohanN7
I'd call the 3-bet with AA (1) KK(3) QQ(6) JJ(6) TT(6) AK(6) AQs(4) KQs(4). Versus that range, the 3-bettor is in trouble on many boards with AK.

Depends what do you consider to be trouble on many boards?

On Axx, Kxx boards AK has around 82% vs your range.
On other boards you have around 40% which is ok.

I dont really see trouble. AK is not nuts when 3betting and getting called, but it is +EV in most cases. Also, it is not all about our preflop and flop equity, unless we go all in preflop or flop. There are more streets to play, so position and player skills will play important role. Equity != EV

I'd 4-bet/shove with AA(5) KK(3) AK(6). Not too bright for the 3-bettor.

I'd 4-bet/fold with AQo(12) KQo(12). This is only semi-nice for the 3-bet/shover because he didn't get it in with the best hand.

Seems that you have leak with 4bet range. According to this, you fold vs shove 63.2%. If considering standard sizes for open raise, 3bet, 4bet, 100bb stacks,
villian needs for shove around 45-50% FE depending on his hand. All of his suited connectors, gappers, PP will have around 30-33% vs your range, so he can
comfortable shove them with big +EV.

So basically for that value 4bet range you should use only AQo as bluffs to be balanced.

My 4-betting range is exploitable, I am aware of that. But the opponent must risk his stack to exploit, and might not be willing to do that. Hence my range is also exploitative. These things always come together as a package.

This range, b t w, I got from the "bootcamp seminar" held last year by pleno1.

Agree that most people will not 5bet shove as bluff vs UTG and MP, but probably if someone has huge sample on you they can see this unbalance.

However, what is the purpose of making 4bet range bluff heavy as default? Do you think this additional KQo is making +EV 4bet? I think average reg at this limit will have more or less balanced 3bet range, so he will not fold % you need vs 4bet, which will make your KQo -EV.
Depends also what is his 3bet range vs that position. If his value range is QQ+, AK or KK+ and bluff range mostly low suited connectors, then KQo will very nicely block his premiums, which will make +EV 4bet with KQo (assuming he doesnt start exploiting you). If his bluff range would consist of broadways like KQ, AQ, AJ then you will block more of his bluffs than value.
On average vs unknown range it will probably be breakeven or -EV because of rake, so I dont see a reason to add bluffs which are at best having marginal +EV.

This range, b t w, I got from the "bootcamp seminar" held last year by pleno1.

If he has unbalanced range as default, probably he has a reason for it, to exploit population. If it works good at limits he plays and for his image, doesnt mean it works for image and limit of some other player.

Also in platinum articles about preflop ranges, all 4bet ranges are highly unbalanced, folding just too much vs shove, and I was always wondering about that.
http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/bss/2253/1/
Here is exactly your range used for UTG. You can see other positiosn, all are very bluff heavy. There is no explanation for that. I asked couple of coatches for that, never got the answer.

I guess it has to do with the fact that when Pleno1 was making these ranges he was convinced that 4bet bluffing was a very good move since people didn't have the "balls" to 5bet enough. At least I heard them saying this repeatedly in his early coachings. He also says all the time that games changes a lot, so it is very possible that nowadays he disagrees with some of the stuff he defended a while ago.

So If I were you I'd keep that in mind, if we think villains do have the balls we have to be careful regarding our 4bet bluffs.

And FWIW, I disagree with that planning of calling a bunch of 3bets with KK+.

Bug

Thanks for answer, it makes sense.
I understand that Pleno1 do it exploitative and has reasons for that, and might not be doing that today anymore.
The problem is, that his ranges are in platinum articles, meaning that every player who plays NL20 and higher have access to read it, and take those ranges for his play, thinking they are very good.

So i think that should be explained in articles at least. Imo makes more sence to put balanced ranges as default in articles (also use for our game), and then decide ourself if we want to add more or less bluffs in our range considering our average villian.

Maybe it might have sense to 4bet bluff heavy as default frim early positions, but why is he also bluff heavy from all positions, especially BU? Even in Nl20 people are able to 5bet shove.
Also vs UTG and MP most players are not going to bluff shove, but will have 3bet range such that they shove X% making our Bluffs not having +Ev so really i dont see ever reason to have bluff heavy range as default.

I think you should post your input in the "feedback" session, you do have a point and I can pass it through but you should post it in feedback nevertheless.

But I actually think that 4betting a ton on BU works well agaist most 20nl regs.

Originally posted by double2
I think you should post your input in the "feedback" session, you do have a point and I can pass it through but you should post it in feedback nevertheless.

But I actually think that 4betting a ton on BU works well agaist most 20nl regs.

Hi, i submitted content mistake in articles and described it.
There ia also big leak in defending vs 3bets, e.g. From BU 73% is folded vs 3bet.
3bet range is bluff heavy vs most positions. So villian can exploite those ranges by 3bet, 4bet, 5bet (basically with any type of agression).

I am not sure for which limits are those ranges designed, maybe it works in Nl2 where people are really passive, but already in nl5 regs learn to 3bet, 4bet wide vs people who fold too much.

I agree completely about what has been said here.

Facts:

• Any range having 50%+ bluffs is exploitable regardless of bet size.
• Any range folding enough for the opponent to auto-profit is exploitable.

I can't access the platinum articles (suggested opening ranges MP, CO, BU, SB, BB), but I can see the UTG one.

I'm not suggesting that the ranges are bad, but it should be made clear in the articles that the ranges are exploitable.

If you are to 4-bet bluff, then the simple GTO one-bet bluff frequency applies because a 4-bet is extremely rarely just called 100bb deep. If you and your opponent are 3x-ing, the 4-bet will cost 24 to win the 13.5 in the middle. For this to work, the opponent must fold roughly twice as often as he shoves. EDIT: This translates to a value to bluff ratio of 2:1. Here we instead have 1:2! This assumes that the villains 3-betting range is composed of plenty of bluffs (like small suited connectors) and probably also value hands that he is letting go of to a 4-bet (AQ/KQs/TT or the like?). What I'm saying is that if the 3-bettors range is anywhere near GTO-like, the bluff heavy 4-bet range is doomed. If the 3-bettor is a good exploitative guy, then things don't get better. They get worse!

Again, I don't think it is bad as an exploitative idea, but this should all be made very clear in the articles.

EDIT AGAIN: To clarify what is my general point, any range a human (or todays robots) can come up with can be exploited to some degree. But that is not the point. The point is that ranges suffering from the deficiencies in the list above are easily exploitable.

I have the same problem with some 3-betting ranges I've seen from the blinds versus button min-raises. I don't know what the PS articles look like here (platinum), but in this spot, things are very different from the UTG 4-bet. Here pot is still small (making it easy for the button to float/set-mine/4-bet bluff) in position, and the situation is common enough for anyone to get a decent sample size. Here the simple GTO one-bet bluff frequency does not apply because more non-committing bets are likely to go in.

Originally posted by YohanN7
Again, I don't think it is bad as an exploitative idea, but this should all be made very clear in the articles.

I dont see how can it be good even as exploitative idea vs population. If articles are meant for limits NL2-NL10, there people 3bet tight so 4bet bluff heavy as default will be mostly burning money. On higher limits, people are not anymore folding enough vs 4bets, also not vs 3bets. I remember a year ago, there were so many regs in NL50, NL100 who fold a lot vs 3bet, 4bet. Today I dont see it almost at all. So if someone is not folding vs 4bet enough, then default bluff heavy strategy is losing money.