Too bluff happy?

Guys , even w34z3l put AQo in his calling range preflop in his Walkthrouhh series.
With utg opening 55+, ATs+, AJo+, KQs-87s we stand great with a flat pre. We still dominate a part of his range if we hit A or Q.
With 3betting we should fold vs 4bet and I do not like folding this equity. With 3 betting villain will fold that whole range that we beat or have good equity agaist. ..
No way 3 betting is better than flatting...

After reading all of this thread I agree that 3-betting AQo is probably a better move. I personally do both (flat and 3-bet) depending on the villain. Imo flatting is not horrible here. The rest of the hand is though.

I strongly agree with nitrol here. Even we34z3l would agree When I think about this I really do not see anything good coming from 3betting AQo here. We have provided good reasons not to 3bet but you do not seem to have any valid arguments against that? You want to "3bet as value so villain will fold because you don't want to play big pots oop".. Really? This is doomed to fail because villain will not fold often enough and then you are playing your "value" hand vs a range that crushes you..

You could make that argument for overlimping AA in the small blind. I feel like nitrol takes the first three letters of his username too seriously quite often.

Not the same thing. With AA we want to get calls and play even vs tight range because we crush that range with AA. AQ doen't crush it. With AA we want to play big pots but we do not want to do that with AQ vs UTG.

Originally posted by inceptioner
After reading all of this thread I agree that 3-betting AQo is probably a better move. I personally do both (flat and 3-bet) depending on the villain. Imo flatting is not horrible here. The rest of the hand is though.

So you think that 3betting is better. And the reason is?

Originally posted by Jaissica
I would say 3betting AQ here is basically mandatory in order to obtain future value from our 3bet range.

If we are only 3betting a traditional 2.52% range (AK+, QQ+) in a SH game it allows players to make too many exploitative folds when we have the biscuits.

Yes that 2.52% 3bet range would be exploitable.. Still no reason to play with merged range. 3bet KK+ for value and add some suited connectors to your bluff range. Easier decisions postflop and we can avoid losing big pots AQvsAK or AQ vs KK when we hit TPTK.

Originally posted by la55i
You want to "3bet as value so villain will fold because you don't want to play big pots oop".. Really? This is doomed to fail because villain will not fold often enough and then you are playing your "value" hand vs a range that crushes you..

No I want to 3bet for value so villain will call with worse hands. That's what a value bet is. If he folds, that's an OK result as well.

What hands in an UTG raise/call range "crush" AQ? One of the three combos of QQ? Most players aren't flatting 3bets with AK and AA.

You also don't consider the times he flats with a hand like 77 and folds to our cbet on a J9x flop which is a pretty good outcome with ace high.

MJ is right. But it doesn't end there. Position is incredibly important, and while you do have the best of it when the flop comes (marginally), every bet that later goes into the pot (from both of you) favors the guy in position. These later bets are the big ones. (If you don't believe this, see how you fare in position and compare it to out of position. There is no escape.)

I don't think there is a right or wrong here. Bad postflop players (that is most of us playing micros) should just call. The very good ones should raise.

Then I shall continue operating under my delusion that I am an excellent postflop player and raise away!

@MJPerry

I got the impression that Jaissica wants to get the pot down as often as possible which means to me it is not for value.

If we take w34z3l's UTG raise/call range IP it would be: QQ-JJ, AdAh, AdAs, AdAc, KdKh, KdKs, KdKc, TdTh, TdTs, TdTc, 9d9h, 9d9s, 9d9c, 8d8h, 8d8s, 8d8c, AQs+, AKo
With AQo we have only 34% equity against that range. So if there is QQ, some AA and KK maybe, AQs+ and AKo you only beat those 88-JJ, and villain shouldn't flat all of his 88-TT. I believe LemOn is using these ranges also.

So you are saying that ranges carefully constructed by a coach are completely nonsense and everyone using those are bad post-flop players?

Originally posted by la55i
@MJPerry

I got the impression that Jaissica wants to get the pot down as often as possible which means to me it is not for value.

If we take w34z3l's UTG raise/call range IP it would be: QQ-JJ, AdAh, AdAs, AdAc, KdKh, KdKs, KdKc, TdTh, TdTs, TdTc, 9d9h, 9d9s, 9d9c, 8d8h, 8d8s, 8d8c, AQs+, AKo
With AQo we have only 34% equity against that range. So if there is QQ, some AA and KK maybe, AQs+ and AKo you only beat those 88-JJ, and villain shouldn't flat all of his 88-TT. I believe LemOn is using these ranges also.

So you are saying that ranges carefully constructed by a coach are completely nonsense and everyone using those are bad post-flop players?

Needless to say, if the UTG is, in addition to being in position, very good, then 3-betting AQ for anything else than hoping for a fold is a mistake. That said, not all players are good and will call a 3-bet with dominated hands.

I disagree that the villain is continuing with 50% of his UTG raise range, dramatically so, but lets presume you are correct.

Villain 4bets a couple of percent and continues with twice that again, folds the remaining half. One time in six we fold to the 4bet, three times in six we take the pot down, two times in six we take a flop with initiative.

Against his polarized call range we are likely at worst evens depending on how you design the range, and if you give him hands we dominate like QKs QTs AJs. Also depends on how foldy the villain is with his middle pairs on various textures. With initiative we should win half of those pots. Really we should win more than half, but half is simple.

So we take down 3 times for a 13.5BB gain, win half the 3bet called pots and draw, and fold4 once for a 12BB loss.

It's thin and a very basic, weak and flawed analysis working on a lot of assumptions, but no more so than saying "Villain will continue half his range"

Position >> Initiative

Standard UTG open in 6max: 55+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, AJo+, KQo = 172 combos
He will call our 3bet with: QQ-JJ,AdAh,AdAs,AdAc,KdKh,KdKs,KdKc,TdTh,TdTs,TdTc,9d9h,9d9s,9d9c,8d8h,8d8s,8d8c,AQs+,AKo = 47 combos
He will 4bet with: AhAs,AhAc,AsAc,KhKs,KhKc,KsKc,AJs-ATs,AQo-AJo = 38 combos

He will continue with 85 combos which is 49,4% of his opening range.

Out of 100 hands he will fold 50 = 3bb profit/hand = 150bb
He 4bets 20 times and we lose 9bb = 180bb
Here we are already losing money.. So in those 30 times villain calls our 3bet with a range that we have 34% equity against, we should make up our loses and win more for it to be profitable. I have told you what problems we have when we play OOP vs his range -> we end up losing bigger pots.

Those calculations are very simple and we can not draw any conclusions from those but what we really are debating about here is the range villain will open and flat our 3bets. I think those ranges presented above are optimal but you have every right to disagree. In general UTG should open tight = we should 3bet him tight = villain knows we should 3bet him tight and hence doesn't continue with his whole range -> he folds KJ,KQ,QT,AJ etc... And plays with hands that have decent equity against our 3betting range.

Can you tell what kind of range you open from UTG and what range you will flat a 3bet?

Edit: One can argue that villain will never flat with AA or KK. There were only 6 combos total in my flatting range. If we move them to 4bet range it gives us less than 1% more equity.

Originally posted by YohanN7
Position >> Initiative

Totally agree, of course. Though just because we don't have the former there's no reason to sacrifice the latter.

Originally posted by la55i
If we take w34z3l's UTG raise/call range IP it would be: QQ-JJ, AdAh, AdAs, AdAc, KdKh, KdKs, KdKc, TdTh, TdTs, TdTc, 9d9h, 9d9s, 9d9c, 8d8h, 8d8s, 8d8c, AQs+, AKo
With AQo we have only 34% equity against that range. So if there is QQ, some AA and KK maybe, AQs+ and AKo you only beat those 88-JJ, and villain shouldn't flat all of his 88-TT. I believe LemOn is using these ranges also.

Well if UTG is w34z3l then I concede my point. I don't think he is though. Those ranges aren't relevant because we have zero reads that villain in this hand will:
- Fold pairs <88
- Flat with some AA/KK
- Fold AJs, KQs
- Flat AK

Originally posted by la55i
Out of 100 hands he will fold 50 = 3bb profit/hand = 150bb
He 4bets 20 times and we lose 9bb = 180bb
Here we are already losing money.

Except you forgot the blinds, so it's actually 4.5bb profit/hand = 225bb.

Originally posted by la55i
So you are saying that ranges carefully constructed by a coach are completely nonsense and everyone using those are bad post-flop players?

I would advise you to Google the concept of a straw man argument.

Originally posted by la55i
Standard UTG open in 6max: 55+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, AJo+, KQo = 172 combos
He will call our 3bet with: QQ-JJ,AdAh,AdAs,AdAc,KdKh,KdKs,KdKc,TdTh,TdTs,TdTc,9d9h,9d9s,9d9c,8d8h,8d8s,8d8c,AQs+,AKo = 47 combos
He will 4bet with: AhAs,AhAc,AsAc,KhKs,KhKc,KsKc,AJs-ATs,AQo-AJo = 38 combos

He will continue with 85 combos which is 49,4% of his opening range.

Wow, you deduced all that from "VPIP: 26.47, PFR: 23.53, 3Bet Preflop: 18.18, Hands: 34"? Amazing!

You seem to be under the impression that w34z3l's range's are "standard". They're not. Most players aren't opening 65s+ etc UTG. Most players ARE opening 22-66. Most players aren't using balanced ranges. Most players open a top-heavy range and don't fold enough to 3bets.

I use a loose version of his ranges myself, but I don't make the mistake of thinking every other reg does.

Originally posted by la55i
@MJPerry

I got the impression that Jaissica wants to get the pot down as often as possible which means to me it is not for value.

If we take w34z3l's UTG raise/call range IP it would be: QQ-JJ, AdAh, AdAs, AdAc, KdKh, KdKs, KdKc, TdTh, TdTs, TdTc, 9d9h, 9d9s, 9d9c, 8d8h, 8d8s, 8d8c, AQs+, AKo
With AQo we have only 34% equity against that range. So if there is QQ, some AA and KK maybe, AQs+ and AKo you only beat those 88-JJ, and villain shouldn't flat all of his 88-TT. I believe LemOn is using these ranges also.

So you are saying that ranges carefully constructed by a coach are completely nonsense and everyone using those are bad post-flop players?

I haven't read or watched whatever hand range guide you are talking about and don't really care to comment on it. Without knowing the purpose of the hand guide or its audience... Is it to protect new players from themselves? Did the coach put AQ in a flatting out of position range to avoid a bit of variance that comes from having a wider 3bet range? Does the coach just want to protect newer players from 3bet pots until they learn more postflop play.

When you raise with a hand like AQ and the non-continuable part of his range folds, that's an awful lot of equity gained. When you raise and worse hands fold you have still gained value - it's a value raise. Excluding the fold part of a villains range, coming up with a continuing range (that includes his 4bets that we fold to) and saying "38% equity" is a nonsense.

I still think the arguments supporting flatting AQ are coming down to trapping - wanting to see flops against worse hands. AQ is not a trapping hand and does not have the potential for clear, dramatic and most importantly clean improvement that a suited connector or pocket pair carries - which in reality are our actual "trap" hands. Instead AQ is a hand that most often will miss leaving you with the 2nd best air, and second most often will hit a vulnerable top pair. I can't imagine a good reason to be seeing more flops with it on purpose than absolutely necessary.

Originally posted by la55i

Out of 100 hands he will fold 50 = 3bb profit/hand = 150bb

Where did the blinds go?

Yes, I forgot the blinds. No, I'm not assuming villain si w34z3l. Villain is unknown and I treat him like a normal thinking player. W34zel's ranges were not made for beginners to protect them. I think those were carefully constructed and meant to be "optimal" at micros. I believe another coach, LemOn, has started to use them at NL25? I use them as a guideline and I think other thinking players will have similar ranges. I deviate from those when I have a reason to do so. This villain plays 26/23 in 34 hands so I do not have any reason.

Here is a Wikipedia article about straw man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Can you please elaborate what it has to do with my arguments?

I assume he is playing a fairly similar range I presented above, you assume he is calling much looser. I have told you why I don't like 3betting, you have told me why you like 3betting. I'm not convinced by your arguments and apparently you are not convinced by mine. I think we have to agree to disagree.

When you raise with a hand like AQ and the non-continuable part of his range folds, that's an awful lot of equity gained. When you raise and worse hands fold you have still gained value - it's a value raise.

Awful lot of equity when his non-continuable part folds? He has to fold 67% for it to be break even. And those times he calls we have to make profit. There is awful lot of boards that we are not happy to see. I believe if we 3bet AQo as a value bet, we have kind of unbalanced range. That is why I like to keep my value range tight and add SCs to my bluff range. Those are better disguised, have some equity, and are easy to fold postflop. With AQ we will end up playing bigger pots and frequently lose it vs AK,KK+.

You can assume that villain won't fold PPs <88 but as well we can assume he will not 4bet KK+ so he won't scare us out of the pot. In this case we really shouldn't assume anything. We should treat villain as unknown and play our standard game. If your standard 3betting range includes AQo, it is fine. Mine doesn't. I think this is not going anywhere and debating about this is quite pointless. I'm not changing my mind here.

Originally posted by la55i
Here is a Wikipedia article about straw man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Can you please elaborate what it has to do with my arguments?

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

i.e.

Originally posted by la55i
So you are saying that ranges carefully constructed by a coach are completely nonsense and everyone using those are bad post-flop players?

Originally posted by la55i
You can assume that villain won't fold PPs <88

Naturally, most people love to setmine.

Originally posted by la55i
but as well we can assume he will not 4bet KK+ so he won't scare us out of the pot.

Why would we assume that? Are you equating "he calls 3bets with 55 in position" with "he has a 0% 4bet range"? Because one of those statements is clearly less likely than the other. Fuck it, let's assume he's only raising 72o UTG; 3betting AQ is hugely +EV now (btw that's another example of a strawman argument).

Originally posted by la55i
I think this is not going anywhere and debating about this is quite pointless. I'm not changing my mind here.

A quote no doubt uttered by many elite poker players on their way to the nosebleed stakes.

If you're playing NL2/NL5 and assigning unknowns/possible regs w34z3l's ranges and assuming they have the discipline to fold 22-77, AJ, KQ etc to 3bets you're going to leave money on the table and often level yourself out of good spots.