Could someone please tell me his opinion about 3bet?

    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      What do u think about these 3 bet ranges:

      Polarized:
      Value Range: JJ+,AKs,AKo 3.0%
      Bluff range: A9s-A2s,KTs-K6s,Q9s-Q6s,J8s-J6s,KJo 6.9%
      Flat Range: TT-22,AQs-ATs,KJs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,AQo-ATo,KQo,QJo 13.00%

      Total~ 23%

      Merged:
      88+,ATs+,KQs,AQo+ 6.7%


      maybe to decrease the bluf range? I think it is too big. 9.9% 3 bet is too much. Is it a good idea to remove KJo and KTs and not play them at all? To leave them,but remove J6s,Q6s and K6s?

      I am talking about a unknown villain. Is that range ok to start making money and when villain adjust we will change our ranges. If he stars to flat to tighter our bottom range. If he starts to 4 bet to increase our top range?

      And one last question.
      We 3 bet OOP flats. c/c flo c/c turn check river hero?
      Lets assume that we have 50% air / 50% nuts and villain now that.Hero's range has 10 combos, 5 hands that beat villain and 5 hands that lose to villain. He has a top pair which is pretty much bluff catcher. Should we shove in this situation? I think it is +EV:
      We bet all our nut hands. We want to bet as many bluff hands as we can. So we want to bet as big as we can.

      Suppose the pot is $1
      Let s = bet size
      Let b = prob(bluff | we bet)
      Let B = number of bluff hands

      We want to make opponent indifferent to calling/folding so...
      EV(call) = b(1+s) - (1-b)s = 0
      Solving for b we get
      b = s / (2s + 1)
      b = s / (2s + 1) = B / (B + 5)
      Solving for B we get
      B = 5s / (1 + s)
      Our EV is equal to the percent of hands we bet since the hands we don't bet have 0 EV and the hands we do bet, villain is indifferent to folding.

      EV = (1+2s)/(2+2s)

      Hence, overbet the river all in with number of bluff hands = B and number of value hands = (B+1).

      What do u think guys?
      Thanks in advance!
  • 16 replies
    • r4zor
      r4zor
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.06.2006 Posts: 228
      there is no merging going on preflop.

      its player independet, image, stacksizes, position awareness.

      against CO you should 3b him every time CO opens. ofc u should look at the blinds who are squeeze happy or SSS or a fish. dont blindly 3b. take your time why you would 3b this time. if you see a fish in the blind is it profitable to 3b the CO? or is it profitable to 3b a fish if he opens from CO and you have K6s and u 3b?

      against unknown im pretty much 3bhappy. from there on i can build my reads against him.

      sorry i cant answer to your last action. :D
    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      Thanks for the answer mate! i believe its almost awlays +EV to lets say 3bet UTG raiser with Ax

      MP and CO its almost awlays +EV to 3 bet with blockers Kx,Qx,Jx suited just in case. In general at small stakes its almost never just calls. Flat a raiser is just something like <3%. Thats a Galfond theory and it's working against unknown.

      The worst thing which could happend in your life is to call 3 bet OOP :D

      ok anyway, someone else? The river theorem?
    • r4zor
      r4zor
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.06.2006 Posts: 228
      Originally posted by bmwteam08
      Thanks for the answer mate! i believe its almost awlays +EV to lets say 3bet UTG raiser with Ax

      MP and CO its almost awlays +EV to 3 bet with blockers Kx,Qx,Jx suited just in case. In general at small stakes its almost never just calls. Flat a raiser is just something like <3%. Thats a Galfond theory and it's working against unknown.

      The worst thing which could happend in your life is to call 3 bet OOP :D

      its always profitable to 3b UTG because his playing back range is really narrow. if he calls we can still cb profitable on Axx,Kxx,Qxx boards.

      i think it depends on boardtexture and what villain thinks about your image. or is he a believer or nonbeliever?

      did we gain equity on the turn? like 56s on 9832 i hate betting and get called and river is an A and we shove and he called like JJ or AQ. i would shove the turn because based on equity.

      another sample.. we 3b KQs from sb vs CO. CO calls. flop T36r we cbet he calls. turn J whats our line? no matter what stacks are going in if we are behind because we have 2OC+ OESD. so we gained equity. so we shove.

      thats called: randomination based on equity.

      ps: of course he can call with top of his range but its a +EV spot to overbetshove the turn :)
    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      Originally posted by r4zor
      like 56s on 9832 i hate betting and get called and river is an A and we shove and he called like JJ or AQ.
      He never has AQ in this spot. More like JJ-QQ. by shoving the river we represent pretty much 50/50 air or nuts. That A hits our range. Thats a similar situation with my second question. His JJQQ are bluf cathers on that board with 3 bet and 3 barrels. if its 50/50 i am pretty much sure it is better to shove the river. It has bigger +EV with two c/c's his cards are face up.he knows that and he knows that we know that :D

      another sample.. we 3b KQs from sb vs CO. CO calls. flop T36r we cbet he calls. turn J whats our line? no matter what stacks are going in if we are behind because we have 2OC+ OESD. so we gained equity. so we shove.


      I never 3bet KQs in this situation. I agree it is +EV to 3 bet it obv, but i believe it is slightly more +EV if we just calls. It is the same like the small pairs. ofc it is +EV to 3 bet them, but if we just call is more +EV in long run.
      In general i 3 bet with hands, which crushed villains range or they are -EV to call with.
    • r4zor
      r4zor
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.06.2006 Posts: 228
      about betting turn and shoving river. the spr is really low and we dont know if he calls it off or call our shove.

      100bbeffective stacks flop- 89bb- turn 76

      he raises from co 3bb, and we 3b to 11bb

      89bb stacksize: the pot will be 23bb we cbet 13bb he calls

      76bb stacksize: the pot will be 49bb whats our line here? lets say we 2ndbarrel again like 28 and he calls

      46bb stacksize: the pot will be 105bb is this a really good shove? i mean A. if he knows that the rivercard is a good card to shove so he will call your shove 100%. B. we are in a bad shape because he is most likely commited.


      about the KQs. with AJ,KQ,QJ i do like 3b it from sb because BB can be a squeezer and its better to play HU with those hands rather than multiway. ofc we can call it from sb and hope that BB folds or call or if BB is a fish i like a call more. about smallpairs and Axs i like to call it too because they are very good to play in multiwaypots.

      you said "in general i 3b with hands, which crushed villains range or they are -EV to call with." if you say so, why arent you 3betting KQs here? but honestly, preflop we are making good decisions all big-small mistakes but in general postflop is where we get value from.

      a quote from a really good player: "which hands can make quads? every F**** hand can make quads" im still laughing about this quote :D hahahhha
    • Adapter1337
      Adapter1337
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.01.2010 Posts: 734
      Seems intresting topic, dont comment atm all but:

      Bluff range: A9s-A2s,KTs-K6s,Q9s-Q6s,J8s-J6s,KJo 6.9%
      Flat Range: TT-22,AQs-ATs,KJs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,AQo-ATo,KQo,QJo 13.00%


      IMO it should be opposite way, bluff with offsuit Ace and flat with suited Ace. We bluff these hands since there is blockers right? So it doesnt matter is it suited or not, but when calling, it matter a lot (i just comment that, i dont say i like or dont like this ranges).
    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      you said "in general i 3b with hands, which crushed villains range or they are -EV to call with." if you say so, why arent you 3betting KQs here?

      because KQs does not crushing villains range, maybe beat it, but not crushing it and has +EV obv


      preflop we are making good decisions all big-small mistakes but in general postflop is where we get value from

      hmmm yes and no. one big mistake preflop,could cost you a lot postflop. i play 200-400nl dunno how is above that, but till that level i believe the best way to make profit is to make villains life harder. How can we make his life harder? When he has to make decisions for big pots. How to make big pots? To start building it preflop :)
    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      IMO it should be opposite way


      lol, dude no.AQo-ATo has so much better equity vs A9s-A2s. To call lets say UTG raise with A9s-A2s is so much -EV to flat, so it is better to 3 bet them. If we flat OTB UTG raiser with AQo-ATo then this could be +EV. as i said before general i 3b with hands, which crushed villains range or they are -EV to call with.

      "If we are 3betting a hand that did not have enough equity to flat call and does not have enough equity to call a shove, then we are taking a hand that was previously a fold (zero EV) and 3betting it (adding EV). With those hands, we are 3betting a very strong stackoff range that will call the 4bet from our opponent (dominating their range). With our air, we can happily fold knowing our opponent made a mistake.

      But, you may ask, how is your opponent making a mistake by 4betting AQ when you have Q3s?

      Because our range either has AQ dominated, or is complete air. Thus, we are playing perfectly and our opponent is actually making what could be a -EV shove (dependent on how wide he is raising and how wide we are calling). Let's take an extreme example and say we are 3betting only AA, KK, AK, J2s-J6s, Q2s-Q6s, K2s-K6s, that means our range is:
      - 4.5% air
      - 2.1% nuts

      Our range doesn't have to be this tight in most situations, but perhaps consider this range when UTG+1 against an UTG raiser that has a preflop range of 77+, AJ+. 2/3 of the time has us crushed, and makes a mistake by folding. What makes this idea interesting is that almost no one is going to cold 4bet you without the nuts...our range looks incredibly strong because very few players are balanced in this spot. Assuming our opponent doesn't flat the 3bet out of position, we are never making a mistake in the hand and our opponents are. According to Sklansky, that's money in the bank.

      If you take a step back and look at the total EV of the situation, you'll realize that while your average profit per 3bet is going to drop (because you'll fold to 4bets 2/3 of the time when villain wakes up with the nuts), you're doing it three times as often. You turn what was 0EV into +EV at the same time you balance your ranges. This is key, and is the reason you don't 3bet a hand that you could otherwise flat with. If a hand already has positive EV in a flat and cannot stack off preflop, and your opponent is going to 4bet or fold, then you give up the EV you already had by flatting and replace it with the EV of the 3bet. As such, you can keep the EV of the flat, but gain the EV of the 3bet by adding hands to your preflop range that were not previously there "
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,303
      Those ranges are meaningless.

      They should be tailored to counter the specific player-profile of villain. 3betting a generic range is the equivalent of deliberately trying to play 25/20 regardless of who is at the table just because someone once said it's a good stat.

      For example against players with an extremely high Ft3bet you should possibly be flatting the majority of your value range, whilst widening your 3bet bluff range.
    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      Originally posted by w34z3l
      Those ranges are meaningless.
      did u read the word unknown? Anyway any opinions about the theorem? do u think it is correct?
    • Adapter1337
      Adapter1337
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.01.2010 Posts: 734
      Sorry i misread topic bit, didnt saw that you have also flat range aswell: ,AQs-ATs.

      I didnt mean about kickers, but suited or offsuit and first i saw that you 3b with suited and call with offsuit, my mistake.
    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      np dude, thats the purpose of the topic :) ill misread something u will and after all we should get correct answer i hope.

      unfortunatelly, there is no big interest about this topic... I am really interested about the second question too, i though here i will find someone to say is it correct or no... mb i should post it in 2+2
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,303
      Originally posted by bmwteam08

      did u read the word unknown? Anyway any opinions about the theorem? do u think it is correct?
      Uhm, sure, why not, they are fine.....but the way I adjust to villain that range is of no value after the very first 3bet.

      Let me explain. 1st 3bet of the session could be taken from your generic range, no problem. Say BU vs CO (I'm assuming that's what the generic range is composed for). Suppose CO flats. I'm already immediately adjusting my 3bet strategy so my 3bets are weighted toward value and/or depolarised if I have other reasons to suspect villain is a fish/station. If CO folds, I'm immediately polarizing my 3bet range and weighting it towards bluffs.

      Of course, a sample size of 1 is nowhere near sufficient to infer anything concrete about villain. But it does tell you what is most likely given the information collected to date. So why not make what is most likely to be the exploitative play until you know otherwise? Rather than sticking with a possibly unprofitable generic range until you have a big enough 3bet sample to draw concrete conclusions about villain.......

      Personally I don't spend time constructing specific ranges. It certainly becomes more interesting though if you assume every hand is played in a vacuum. A static range instantly becomes relevant.......but unfortunately we don't play in a vacuum, so while your generic range is fascinating from a theoretical point of view, it is still essentially useless.

      Btw, I'll check out the theorem later.
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,303
      I've only glanced at formula, but isn't exact stack size relevant here? (i.e size of overbet). The reason I say that is because in practice that would also have an effect on villains calling range. He would never know you were shoving 50/50 but likely base his estimate on the exact size of your overbet.

      If you shove 1M over $1 he presumably assumes you have the nuts always.
      (Unless you are playing on 888)

      Not questioning the accuracy of your calculations (haven't followed them through yet), just unsure on the exact relevance of your theorem.
    • bmwteam08
      bmwteam08
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.01.2011 Posts: 320
      Originally posted by w34z3l
      He would never know you were shoving 50/50
      Lets assume that he knows.
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,303
      Originally posted by bmwteam08
      Lets assume that he knows.
      But since you can't assume that in practice....what is the relevance/application of your formula. That's what I was asking in effect....