KQo 3bet 3way Qxx

Hi,

pre flop I tend do call in this spot but 3bet with KQo seems okay as well. Size I'm not in love with it, would make 12bbs, even with the shorty fish.

Flop I think we should bet, cbh is a mistake in my opinion. You have a ton of value versus the fish and your hand does need protection, not only versus folding range but also versus continuing range, you don't want to let hands like AJ, JT, worse Qx, FD, K9 see the turn for free. It's more EV for them and less for you.

As played, turn shove I think it's decent in a 3bet pot with small SPR and double FD. We always have better hand than CO and that's really important.

Size I'm not in love with it, would make 12bbs, even with the shorty fish.

Whats the point of having bigger size ?

Originally posted by GingerKid

Size I'm not in love with it, would make 12bbs, even with the shorty fish.

Whats the point of having bigger size ?

In CO shoes I would call close to 100% of my range. And that's not good for you. It's not in your best interest to let me see a flop and realize equity with a bunch of my range.

I assume you open raise CO around 25-30%, so if you call defend 100% range vs my 3bet, then you will play postflop with a weak cappt range vs much stronger range OOP. So how can it be bad for me? You would really have problem defending postflop.
And if you defend really 100%, then I dont have a reason to have polarized range, but value heavy together with playable hands like SC, Axs
And it is not that you realize your equity when you call. You have to pay for it when you call, then you will have hard time realizing equity with your weak range OOP.

So I really dont see a reason that you defend 100% range, why not simply X% to prevent me bluffing ?

Originally posted by GingerKid
I assume you open raise CO around 25-30%, so if you call defend 100% range vs my 3bet, then you will play postflop with a weak cappt range vs much stronger range OOP. So how can it be bad for me? You would really have problem defending postflop.
And if you defend really 100%, then I dont have a reason to have polarized range, but value heavy together with playable hands like SC, Axs
And it is not that you realize your equity when you call. You have to pay for it when you call, then you will have hard time realizing equity with your weak range OOP.

So I really dont see a reason that you defend 100% range, why not simply X% to prevent me bluffing ?

You have a misconception regarding this topic. You think you want me to see a flop with you with my weak range OOP. But since you are giving me really good odds you let me have a profitable call since I don't need to do that well post flop, I just need to realize some % of my equity make it best to call pre flop instead of folding. And if it's better for me to call Axs than to fold that's not good for you, more EV for me, less for you. You are undervalueing the fact that you let me see 3 cards cheaply.

Let's take it to an extreme, should we ever fold OOP versus a min 3bet? I don't think so, forget minimum FE, if we have a +EV call with 100% of our we should do it.

You have a misconception regarding this topic. You think you want me to see a flop with you with my weak range OOP. But since you are giving me really good odds you let me have a profitable call since I don't need to do that well post flop, I just need to realize some % of my equity make it best to call pre flop instead of folding. And if it's better for me to call Axs than to fold that's not good for you, more EV for me, less for you. You are undervalueing the fact that you let me see 3 cards cheaply.

I am not sure if this is correct. If you have to cold call min 3bet, it is true that you have great pot odds and that you should call 100% range (i would do the same), and you should play many hands +EV because of it, even though you will fold too much on flop. But what is important here, you calculate your EV as all the money at the table is dead money, you only need to pay small % to see the flop, and thats why it is +EV.
But if it is +EV even each hand in your range, doesnt mean that the agressor is not winning money, or winning less money than he would if he 3bets 3x.
I can compare this situation, with situation when we are e.g. on turn and opponent has a draw and we have a value hand. We can raise him and give him odds that he can't call us +EV with his draw, in which case he folds, but we can go to extreme and min raise him, in which case his call will be nice +EV, but our raise is also +EV and we win more money when we give him correct odds to call us, than when we give him bad odds and he folds. So it is similar to preflop play. If I give you bad odds with 3bet size, you will fold very weak hands like e.g. Q9o which are dominated and bla bla bla, but if I give you correct odds you will get "trappt" and I will get money also from that hand as well from other hands. So with your buttom part of range, maybe you will play +EV from time you call 3bet to the end of hand, but it is only because you had increadible pot odds preflop.

So if your plan is to call 100% range, and to give up > X% on some street (I suppouse flop), then each my bluff will have +EV cbet, and off course each my value will be very nice +EV. if you would defend X% vs my 3bet, then my bluffs should have around EV=0, and you would pay my value hands minimum

I'm gonna ask mbml to give his input since he is a much better player than me, maybe he can explain better or maybe disagree with me

Ok, it is great to hear more opinions.
Another similar example with great pot odds is when we min raise BU, and BB has great pot odds to flat. But if he flats too wide, BU will likely play +EV with buttom of range. BB will play +EV with big part of range (theoretically it should be whole range, otherwise no sense to defend), but it is only due to great pot odds preflop. So Why dont you open raise larger from BU to generate more FE and prevent BB to call with weak hands? I think this is very similar to situation when we min 3bet IP vs CO and SB.

I've talked about this hand with Uri Peleg, here it is (don't get used to it ):

Originally posted by GingerKid

So if your plan is to call 100% range, and to give up > X% on some street (I suppouse flop), then each my bluff will have +EV cbet, and off course each my value will be very nice +EV. if you would defend X% vs my 3bet, then my bluffs should have around EV=0, and you would pay my value hands minimum

"every sentence here is correct, but it gives the illusion his bluffs are making money. In fact they have a very -ev 3bet (since you never fold)
and the cbet doesn't come close to making up for it, so his bluffs lose a lot lot lot, for example lets say he 3bets to 5bb, you call. Pot is 12bb, lets say you overfold and he wins 1.5bb from cbetting (that's a lot), so his 3bet bluff+cbet is -3.5bb total for him, so now he is never bluffing bcz u always call but if he goes wide depolarized he opens up the betting for your premiums (u can 4bet a polarized range) and that's bad for him and when he goes tighter, yeah he makes money but, u just call and try to hit big hands, u get the correct odds, i mean he is a favorite in that situation, but he woudl have been calling as well with that range, i mean anything u do with your premiums preflop other than fold is making money. I would guess min3bet is worse than slightly bigger 3bet. That said, his sizing in the hand was 2.5x that of the opener in position, which is not absurdly small, so it can't be a big mistake."

Ok, this seems like a mathematically proven concept, and thats the answer I am searching for.
Thanks a lot of for explanation, it helped a lot. Can you please ask him for the following?

Pot is 12bb, lets say you overfold and he wins 1.5bb from cbetting (that's a lot), so his 3bet bluff+cbet is -3.5bb total for him

This is based on that all my bluffs from preflop are super rarely flopping medium hands or strong hands or profitable bluffs postflop. Or in other words my preflop bluffs stay bluffs postflop so EV is based purely on bluff bet on flop.
So we can calculate EV of bluffs preflop

EV = p_strong * EV_strong + p_draw * EV_draw + p_pure_bluff * EV_pure_bluff

Here, p_pure_bluff is the probability of having pure bluff on flop, and probabilities sum to 1. So you only considered here EV_pure_bluff, and ignored first 2 terms when we hit strong or draw (weak pair is also draw).

So, even with worst bluffs like 27o I will sometimes hit strong hand, and sometimes hit pair which can get IP to showdown. So i think that 1.5bb is actually very underestimated. It is true that so weak bluffs rarely flop good, but why would I use so unplayable hands vs someone who I expect to rarely or never fold vs my preflop small size 3bet?
For example, I would rather use in BB vs SB or BU vs CO hands like 57s, 68s, K9s, Q9s, as bluffs which flop reasonable often strong hand or profitable bluff. And yes if I make my range depolarized, you can 4bet, but I can also min 5bet then you have to shove, so 4bet is not a solution for you when you defend 100% range, you still need to call OOP most of your range.

So this argument, that my bluffs will be -EV if even if you overfold flop, is similar to argument for cold calling open raise e.g. BU vs CO. I risk when I call CO 2.5BB, and if CO checks flop and overfolds, and I win with my bet 1.5bb, i still lose money because i invested 2.5bb preflop. Thats why I need to cold call only hands which often enough flop either good hand or profitable enough bluff.

So, I can use for "bluffs" 3bet exactly the hands I would use for cold calling which will total play +EV for the whole hand (if it plays +EV when I cold call, it will be even higher EV when I min 3bet and you defend by calling because you will overfold + you will have cappt range and I will not).
So my 3bet range would be the value part 99+, AJ+ together with all other hands that I would cold call vs CO open raise, so with this all my hands should be +EV. In that case, my 3bet range would be vs CO around 15%, from which I can easily defend vs 4bets by having min 5bet/fold and 5bet/call range, together with 4bet call range. So with 4bets you will have value with premiums, but you have to defend 100% range, so premiums is only small % of your range.

What I find as big disadvantage of 3betting small is that because of incredible pot odds that villain gets, I have to give up on flop very small % of range comparing to 3betting standard, which is harder to achieve with balanced range. So I have to make sure that I don't give up too much on flop so that really each call 3bet is +EV for you.

Ok let me start out by saying, I am not trying to prove anything mathematically.

You are correct that your bluffs will flop equity and this effects the ev calculation. I was just pointing out that it seemed you felt your bluffs were printing money when there is in fact no reason to assume this is true. A good way to estimate the equity of bluffing is to guess how much of your equity the bluffhands will realize postflop and then just do an ev calc.

I have in the past experimented with 3betting small ip, and I think it's a good strategy (not saying the best, but definitely playable) if you are 3betting a wide range. I think 3betting a tighter range (whether or not it's polarized) you would just do better with a bigger sizing (again not going to prove this - but think of it intuitively - and take an extreme example of villain having only AA. Would you rather he 3bet you small or big? :-))

So 3betting smaller with a wider range is an option, and to be honest it plays fairly badly for the person you are 3betting against. The main issue is, that the rest of the table gets on average bigger pots and wider ranges to cold4bet against with their premiums, thus increasing their ev for those parts of their range.

As for the rest of your post/question, I will just point out some inaccuracies in your thought process (Again I am not trying to prove anything here, I don't have the knowledge to prove mathematically that min3betting is suboptimal)

1. You say that your range can play vs 4bets. This can be said for any range! The truth is, when villain 4bets you (with for example polarized range) if you are playing balanced, his bluffs are about breakeven (which means u win the pot) while his value hands make a lot of money, more money the stronger they are. So here you are overall increasing villain's ev with his premiums by a significant amount. And while it's true his premiums are not a large part of his preflop range, the pots they win get larger, and the range you stackoff vs them gets wider, and the pots they win are quite significant in bigblinds, so i wouldn't say this isn't important. The same is true for the 4betting ranges of all the people left to act.

2. You say that a big disadvantage of 3betting small is that you can't give up a lot. Here you are being a bit inaccurate. If you give up too much, yes villain has +ev flats with his entire range, but they are only +ev compared to folding, and there is a decent chance you still get overall the better of the situation. I wouldn't go crazy continuing just to deny villain pot odds to flat profitably preflop, I don't think that ends up working in your favor.

So kind of to recap:
3betting small (not too small!) is a viable strategy, with a wide range. Whether it's better or worse than having a flatting range and a big3bet range nobody knows, because the math is too complicated. It is not a clearly dominated strategy, but there are a lot of problems that come up when you start playing it.

Anyhow hope this helps...
Uri

Ok you convinced me that min 3bet is not that great as it looked to me. I thought that i would print money with bluffs also if villian overfolds flop which is not the case because my preflop EV is not breakeven or slightly losing as when villian defends X% vs standard 3bet. Also didnt consider that other villians can 4bet me wider.

Well, if we would find 3bet size which is minimum, such that villians doesnt have good enough pot odds to call 100% range, but defends standard X% range so that preflop EV of my buttom range is zero, but villian still has wide enough range so he needs to overfold flop, then all our bluffs would play +EV. So my main idea of small size is to force villian overfold some street thus making my bluff EV positive.
Similar idea i have disscused wit double2 in other thread is about betting small on dry boards to force villian to overfold, since he would need to defend totally unplayable hands. He also didnt agree on that.

Thanks for explaining to both of you, i think i learned and understood something new from it.

Last quick question, what do you think about large 3bet sizes, 4x, 5x

Originally posted by GingerKid
Ok you convinced me that min 3bet is not that great as it looked to me. I thought that i would print money with bluffs also if villian overfolds flop which is not the case because my preflop EV is not breakeven or slightly losing as when villian defends X% vs standard 3bet. Also didnt consider that other villians can 4bet me wider.

Well, if we would find 3bet size which is minimum, such that villians doesnt have good enough pot odds to call 100% range, but defends standard X% range so that preflop EV of my buttom range is zero, but villian still has wide enough range so he needs to overfold flop, then all our bluffs would play +EV. So my main idea of small size is to force villian overfold some street thus making my bluff EV positive.
Similar idea i have disscused wit double2 in other thread is about betting small on dry boards to force villian to overfold, since he would need to defend totally unplayable hands. He also didnt agree on that.

Thanks for explaining to both of you, i think i learned and understood something new from it.

Last quick question, what do you think about large 3bet sizes, 4x, 5x

Your opponent needs to defend less versus bigger sizings, so your value part of that range has to be "stronger", so that means less "bluff" hands and therefore a tighter range overall. When you are IP I think it also means for your opponent he should not be calling much, he should be 4bet or folding a lot, using a GTOish approach.