[Closed] Nl200 Qq Oop

Hey I think your thought process of saying my QQ beats his EP range 70-30 so I have to 3bet him doesn't make any sense. If you think like that you can 3bet any reasonable hand against any position against any normal player because your specific hand is much stronger than his entire possible holding range.

Is he likely to call 3bets with worse hands ? Does he fold TT/JJ UTG to my 3bet ? What is my image ? Have you been 3betting him alot ? What is his foldto3bet%, call3bet%, what is his 4bet% ?

=> Those are the things you should think about, not that your QQ is 70% favorite against his entire range, it doesn't make any sense. Think about how much equity your QQ has against the range that wants to continue against your 3bet => That's gonna be a lot less than 70%.

Once you 3bet and the flop comes 568 I don't understand why you would even consider folding QQ.
=> It should be pretty obvious that you can't fold your hand anymore, otherwise you shouldn't have 3betted in the first place if you aren't willing to go broke in this flop.

LOL ♦ Thanks for your comments, though I agree only with the last part.

I think it is pretty obvious value 3-bet in this spot and the reason is EXACTLY the thing that I am 70% favourite against his open range. In every single situation you have to assess the strength of your hand, give your opponent a range and continue with the move with highest possible EV. You have a better hand (70-30 is very good) and are OOP. Opponents can make mistake when facing force.

I guess he continues with all pocket pairs, AK and sometimes AQs and few suited connectors (say 78s-JTs). He is not 4-betting which helps me to narrow his range even more. BTW - I am HAPPY if he folds his 22-88, suited connectors etc. as in that case there were 2 players pre and I won their money without showdown. (in comparison if I would not 3-bet they would be only willing to invest money on flop with hands that are either better or have drawing potential. There is nothing to wait for PRE, just 3-bet for value). There is no sense in calling against 2 players, just too speculative, I am likely to have the best hand and they are willing to call (for set value mostly) with range of worse hands (I still have at least 60% against his calling range and I have huge initiative with a potential to get down the pot on every flop he does not hit).

I think 3-bet QQ in this spot PRE is clearer than anything.

On the flop, I think he mini-raises 66-JJ and some suited connectors (draws + pair, OESD etc.), he may also try a move with AK, or he´s bluffing totally with air or hands like JTs having gutshot only. That´s why I find a shove.. On the other hand when he raises only 7% hands, even fold can´t be fully excluded from considerations IMO (though I only considered it very shortly).

hello, I might be wrong about this but I don't think Purity was saying it was wrong to 3bet QQ pf. I think all he was saying was that maybe the thought process of "I am ahead of his range => I 3bet" was too simplistic.

I think he is saying that there are other factors to take into account before you three bet (like how much equity you have against the range that he continues with - much less than 70%).

However, personally I do generally 3bet here, since we don't really want to play multiway oop.

On the flop, you say he will raise with some suited connectors. Could you be more specific as I'm not sure which hands like this will be in his range when he calls the 3bet pre with 100bb stacks - but maybe I missed something.

lastly, I think we should consider just calling on the flop. When we push he folds all his air and calls with the value range that crushes us. As you say, one of the reasons for your smallish bet on the flop is to induce bluffs.is The board is not very dangerous so I don't think we need to protect that much against the kind of range he is likely to have here (mostly low pps or overpairs to the board, I would imagine). So I think we could call and re-evaluate on the turn, sometimes folding and (mostly) shipping.

Originally posted by Tim64
hello, I might be wrong about this but I don't think Purity was saying it was wrong to 3bet QQ pf. I think all he was saying was that maybe the thought process of "I am ahead of his range => I 3bet" was too simplistic.

I think he is saying that there are other factors to take into account before you three bet (like how much equity you have against the range that he continues with - much less than 70%).

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying.
=> For example if I would follow jekyll001 reasoning then I would have to 3bet AT+/KJ+ every single time in the blinds if a button openraises because those hands are a huge favorite against the entire range of a button opener. While 3betting those hands certainly is good and profitable, there are numerous circumstances and reasons why flatting those hands pre can be the better choice. It's so much situational and opponent dependent that saying ur specific hand > villain's entire range so i'm forced to 3bet is in my modest opinion a bit too simplistic.

Originally posted by jekyll001
I guess he continues with all pocket pairs, AK and sometimes AQs and few suited connectors (say 78s-JTs). He is not 4-betting which helps me to narrow his range even more. BTW - I am HAPPY if he folds his 22-88, suited connectors etc. as in that case there were 2 players pre and I won their money without showdown. (in comparison if I would not 3-bet they would be only willing to invest money on flop with hands that are either better or have drawing potential. There is nothing to wait for PRE, just 3-bet for value). There is no sense in calling against 2 players, just too speculative, I am likely to have the best hand and they are willing to call (for set value mostly) with range of worse hands (I still have at least 60% against his calling range and I have huge initiative with a potential to get down the pot on every flop he does not hit).

This is way more better way of analyzing than saying I beat his EP range 70-30 so I 3bet. If your reads are correct this is going to be a super profitable spot to 3bet since he seems to call alot and with weak hands + capable of making moves post-flop.

So considering what u are saying about your opponent here I wouldn't put too much thought about the situation since he might aswel show up with a lot of weaker hands and shove for value on the flop.

i dont get Ts's reasonings. you speaking that he could have all PPs, SC's, can even move with AK... and then you thinking of folding overpair in 3b pot.
I missed smth?

Purity, Tim - agree with your comments. I was just lazy to write the full reasoning in the first post, so I simplified it because it is obvious 3-bet PRE ♦ I think this point is clear.

***
Regarding post flop - I think he might be bluffing 67s, 78s, 89s, or even 9Ts. I think shove is better as I don´t want to see any king or Ace on the turn as well.

Originally posted by jekyll001
Purity, Tim - agree with your comments. I was just lazy to write the full reasoning in the first post, so I simplified it because it is obvious 3-bet PRE ♦ I think this point is clear.

***
Regarding post flop - I think he might be bluffing 67s, 78s, 89s, or even 9Ts. I think shove is better as I don´t want to see any king or Ace on the turn as well.

Completely disagree for Full Ring. A 14/9 is never opening a pocket pair less then 66 here. In addition to that he doesn't have 9T, 78s, 67s in his ep opening range so he can't be bluffing those on the flop.

It's definitely not an automatic 3bet either. You need more information about how he plays in 3bet pots and a plan for when he 4bets (and given that you're not going to be stacking this at 200nl if he 4bets in this scenario then you're better off not 3betting to begin with).

The flop I really hate - he was an extremely tight early position opener who just raised your cbet in a 3bet pot. There is quite literally nothing in his range that you beat. A flop raise of 7% is only sets in my opinion and I don't expect you're getting bluffed often enough (given that you're behind so much of his range) to ever justify stacking off.

I think it is pretty obvious value 3-bet in this spot and the reason is EXACTLY the thing that I am 70% favourite against his open range. In every single situation you have to assess the strength of your hand, give your opponent a range and continue with the move with highest possible EV. You have a better hand (70-30 is very good) and are OOP. Opponents can make mistake when facing force.

This is extremely bad reasoning.

- Just because you're this far ahead of his opening range (which in the aforementioned example you definitely aren't) doesn't mean that you're this far ahead of his continuing range

- You can't balance a 3bet here with bluff hands and given this are better off not 3betting to begin with.

- You have no plan for when he 4bets except for folding and given that you'd rather play this hand for value then fold equity you definitely can't take the 3betting approach.

I guess he continues with all pocket pairs, AK and sometimes AQs and few suited connectors (say 78s-JTs)

Not at 200nl Full Ring from a player this tight. He's continuing with a range that's more like TT+, AK. If he's set mining in this situation that's different but I feel like a vast majority of players no longer make that error.

Reading this back I apologize if I came across as condescending - That wasn't my intention at all and I used the language I did simply to emphasize how strongly I felt against the line taken / 3bet reasoning.

Wau, really interesting read., Skelm. I used to play like you advice on lower limits = extremely nitty approach ♦ But still may be correct.

I´d like to discuss this for ages, as it so unclear to me and though I agree with some of your points, I also I disagree a lot with some of your reasoning

My arguments are:

1) He raises 11% of hands from EP. To my experience MANY players raise ALL pocket pairs, AK and some suited connectors (connectors in order to disguise strength.). Typically you see that they have like 10% PFR from EP, 8%from MP (from here they are more likely to get 3-betted so they tighten up their range little bit) and much more from LP.

What is his range 11% in your view? Of course there must be ALL pocket pairs, AK and some suited connectors which counts to 10% approximately. I think you don´t believe he raises KQ (maybe if suited) or KJ.

2) if you look at his range, there are clearly many hands which are WORSE pre-flop and he either folds them directly (well, I may have lost some value in comparison to call pre, agree with you On the other hand if I just call he can complete his monster = risk) or he calls them. And I am happy to get called by worse.

3) In case he 4-bets, I am probably fold, that´s right. But it means he has better hand probably and if called only I would have probably invested something on flop or turn as well before I fold, or even get to SD and lose more than 3-bet/folding.

4) if you don´t 3-bet marginal spots, you become completely readable and will never get paid for your AA,KK

- I would be more inclined to play call PRE against maniac (as a bluff-catcher), not against a TAG and 2 players in the hand (waiting to hit their set).

I really STRONGLY think QQ is good enough here to protect PRE against his 11% PFR range and is more EV to 3-bet.

As played, actually, I was considering fold shortly - that´s exactly why I posted the hand in order to make sure my play was OK. In case it turns out that I should have only called PRE, I will be amazed however as I found 3-bet clearly better. btw - I think on NL200, very nitty approach is long-term not the best already. People float, bluf, raise, you will be folding all the time with passive/nitty play.

Thanks for your opinion

Originally posted by jekyll001
Wau, really interesting read., Skelm. I used to play like you advice on lower limits = extremely nitty approach ♦ But still may be correct.

I´d like to discuss this for ages, as it so unclear to me and though I agree with some of your points, I also I disagree a lot with some of your reasoning

My arguments are:

1) He raises 11% of hands from EP. To my experience MANY players raise ALL pocket pairs, AK and some suited connectors (connectors in order to disguise strength.). Typically you see that they have like 10% PFR from EP, 8%from MP (from here they are more likely to get 3-betted so they tighten up their range little bit) and much more from LP.

What is his range 11% in your view? Of course there must be ALL pocket pairs, AK and some suited connectors which counts to 10% approximately. I think you don´t believe he raises KQ (maybe if suited) or KJ.

2) if you look at his range, there are clearly many hands which are WORSE pre-flop and he either folds them directly (well, I may have lost some value, agree with you On the other hands he does not complete his monster = NO risk) or he calls them. And I am happy to get called by worse.

3) In case he 4-bets, I am probably fold, that´s right. But it means he has better hand probably and I would probably invest something on flop or turn as well before I fold, or even get to SD and lose more than 3-bet/folding.

4) if you don´t 3-bet marginal spots, you become completely readable and will never get paid for your AA,KK

- I would be more inclined to play call PRE against maniac (as a bluff-catcher), not against a TAG and 2 players in the hand (waiting to hit their set).

I really STRONGLY think QQ is good enough here to protect PRE against his 11% PFR range and is more EV to 3-bet.

As played, actually, I was considering fold shortly - that´s exactly why I posted the hand in order to make sure my play was OK. In case it turns out that I should have only called PRE, I will be amazed however as I found 3-bet clearly better. btw - I think on NL200, very nitty approach is long-term not the best already. People float, bluf, raise, you will be folding all the time with passive/nitty play.

Thanks for your opinion

If it helps I'm a 3ptBB+ winner at this stake (on FullTilt) over a significant sample size and also Dusty Schmidt's (leatherass9)'s 2010 protégé so I'm really not talking out of my arse and do know what I'm talking about. If you'd like to know my screenname to verify results then feel free to send me a pm and I can show you / prove my results.

1) He raises 11% of hands from EP. To my experience MANY players raise ALL pocket pairs, AK and some suited connectors (connectors in order to disguise strength.). Typically you see that they have like 10% PFR from EP, 8%from MP (from here they are more likely to get 3-betted so they tighten up their range little bit) and much more from LP.

You're vastly over-adjusting to statistics. VP$IP/PFR as totals merge much, much quicker then their positional versions and I'm 110% certain that a 13/9 doesn't have these hands in their ep range. If you'd like to clarify this yourself then pick a higher volume nit such as bareace and map his opening ranges - I think the results will surprise you considerably.

Case in point - I don't think his range is 11% or close to it. I think it consists of 66+, AQ, AJs, AK.

4) if you don´t 3-bet marginal spots, you become completely readable and will never get paid for your AA,KK

This is called polarization and it's exactly what you are doing by 3betting - not by not 3betting. When you 3bet here you're only 3betting value hands, not bluffs (so you're going to get owned by the positional player a lot) where as when you flat here (and yes, I'm often flatting here with KK, AA also for balance) then you open more available options with your more marginal hands postflop since you can have QQ in your range. Knowing that you 3bet Queens for value here I could rip you apart in position as villain in so many spots that you didn't 3bet where you would want to bluff but could no longer credibly represent an overpair reducing your value combos by a considerable amount.

I understand you think very strongly about it but I really think you'd be well served talking about this with a lot of other winning players for clarification (for what it's worth as due diligence I did just this tonight before this post).

Originally posted by jekyll001
Wau, really interesting read., Skelm. I used to play like you advice on lower limits = extremely nitty approach ♦ But still may be correct.

I´d like to discuss this for ages, as it so unclear to me and though I agree with some of your points, I also I disagree a lot with some of your reasoning

My arguments are:

1) He raises 11% of hands from EP. To my experience MANY players raise ALL pocket pairs, AK and some suited connectors (connectors in order to disguise strength.). Typically you see that they have like 10% PFR from EP, 8%from MP (from here they are more likely to get 3-betted so they tighten up their range little bit) and much more from LP.

What is his range 11% in your view? Of course there must be ALL pocket pairs, AK and some suited connectors which counts to 10% approximately. I think you don´t believe he raises KQ (maybe if suited) or KJ.

2) if you look at his range, there are clearly many hands which are WORSE pre-flop and he either folds them directly (well, I may have lost some value in comparison to call pre, agree with you On the other hand if I just call he can complete his monster = risk) or he calls them. And I am happy to get called by worse.

3) In case he 4-bets, I am probably fold, that´s right. But it means he has better hand probably and if called only I would have probably invested something on flop or turn as well before I fold, or even get to SD and lose more than 3-bet/folding.

4) if you don´t 3-bet marginal spots, you become completely readable and will never get paid for your AA,KK

- I would be more inclined to play call PRE against maniac (as a bluff-catcher), not against a TAG and 2 players in the hand (waiting to hit their set).

I really STRONGLY think QQ is good enough here to protect PRE against his 11% PFR range and is more EV to 3-bet.

As played, actually, I was considering fold shortly - that´s exactly why I posted the hand in order to make sure my play was OK. In case it turns out that I should have only called PRE, I will be amazed however as I found 3-bet clearly better. btw - I think on NL200, very nitty approach is long-term not the best already. People float, bluf, raise, you will be folding all the time with passive/nitty play.

Thanks for your opinion

As for the bolded section here - This was correct a year ago but now in our post-shortstack error it's most certainly no longer the case. Midstakes on FullTilt is dying and as a result of this a number of very good regulars have moved down (xxtoafk, xxflyingxshark are prime examples). Because of this if you don't have an extremely solid game then you're going to be in a lot of horrible spots playing out of position against this new breed of incredibly tough regular.

If you'd like the perfect example then take a look at berlinsxxbestx. He was one of the biggest winners last year yet has no longer been able to show a profit in these games since the shortstack infestation was removed.

16/14-18/15 is the new range of styles that will show the most profit for these stakes without a doubt.

Very interesting. I would be interested to discuss this with you in more detail. If you could send me your contact to Jekyll001@seznam.cz I would appreciate it much as I don´t know what PM means (?). We might skype some day to share views.

I also play FT NL200FR. I moved to FT only in July and in July I am 2BB/100 profitable over 70,000 hands at NL200 FR. I used to be +5BB/100 but had some sick downswing last 4 days which costed 3,000 bucks hehe ♦ (don´t want to explain downswing in more detail as people never listen to it anyway, but it was real downswing, KK against AA 7times, lower sets etc. Only small screw up by my stupid plays ♠_cool: ♦)

I have completely different strategy than you, I frequently bluff 4+bet and am also willing to go broke with hands like JTs PRE on 5-bet against right opponents (e.g. against regular 4betting from BU). People fold so frequently that it is not that bad. btw I am 16/13/7% 3bet generally.

So in the hand I posted I can sometimes 3-bet also with hands like 78s, so I have balanced moves as well as you have. Though more aggresive - you balance by playing the better hands more passively, I balance by playing worse hands aggressively (against right opponents - e.g. nits, tight regs etc.). It also works out very well, you would be surprised.

Would be interested to exchange the graphs, discuss the views.

I can't really say too much about the best preflop-line since I rarely play full ring, so I'm not too familiar with EP-ranges people have.
From my point of view it seemed to be ok to 3bet, but I'm obv a SH-spewtard ♦.

Imo once you 3bet there's no way you can bet/fold on this flop, I'd mostly just ship it.
I thought about calling, but it will by no means look weak if you call, so I expect him to basically never bluff on the turn, therefore you can as well ship it on the flop.

@Jekyll
From what I read of him I'd say skelm is a very good player, so in your shoes I'd listen to what he's telling you ;).

@skelm
There's no need to prove anything with SNs, graphs, etc., every half-decent player can easily tell that you have a deep understanding of the game even after the few posts you made here in the forum.

To close the discussion:

- He had 66 set this time.
- I made a bad read on flop, as his raise 7% is really strong range.
- It was very tough flop decision, may be makes sense to play more passively as Skelm advised. Because on flop he only continues with set and I can´t get no more value from worse hands from flop further because my line 3-bet pre / C-bet flop looks too strong.
- bad luck that he hits his set, grr

One more question - how can this (posted by Skelm) happen? I don´t get it:
- You're vastly over-adjusting to statistics. VP$IP/PFR as totals merge much, much quicker then their positional versions

Originally posted by jekyll001
To close the discussion:

- He had 66 set this time.
- I made a bad read on flop, as his raise 7% is really strong range.
- It was very tough flop decision, may be makes sense to play more passively as Skelm advised. Because on flop he only continues with set and I can´t get no more value from worse hands from flop further because my line 3-bet pre / C-bet flop looks too strong.
- bad luck that he hits his set, grr

One more question - how can this (posted by Skelm) happen? I don´t get it:
- You're vastly over-adjusting to statistics. VP$IP/PFR as totals merge much, much quicker then their positional versions

Well basically VP$IP is a total of each VP$IP by position. So you have their VP$IP from each position and the average of that becomes their overall VP$IP. Because the total is an average it converges as a statistic a lot quicker (given that it's an average of their entire range, not just their range from x position).

Originally posted by skelm

Well basically VP$IP is a total of each VP$IP by position. So you have their VP$IP from each position and the average of that becomes their overall VP$IP. Because the total is an average it converges as a statistic a lot quicker (given that it's an average of their entire range, not just their range from x position).

Yep, but in my thread I referred to his PFR from EP (!!) to be 11%. I always look at the pop-up window and look at the particular stat from given position.. The total (merged) figures are just for reference.

That´s why I 3-betted because he had PFR from EP 11% (=too high from EP).

he was 14/9 but raised 11% from EP, cca 6% from MP and 13% from LP. (Which makes sense, I am the most tight from MP, too.)

Originally posted by jekyll001

Originally posted by skelm

Well basically VP$IP is a total of each VP$IP by position. So you have their VP$IP from each position and the average of that becomes their overall VP$IP. Because the total is an average it converges as a statistic a lot quicker (given that it's an average of their entire range, not just their range from x position).

Yep, but in my thread I referred to his PFR from EP (!!) to be 11%. I always look at the pop-up window and look at the particular stat from given position.. The total (merged) figures are just for reference.

That´s why I 3-betted because he had PFR from EP 11% (=too high from EP).

Well that's my point - you can't use his PFR from early position until you have many thousand hands on him. You can however use the overall PFR to get an overall indication of his playing style.

Personally I'd stop using the positional stats - they're highly inaccurate (since ranges for position change depending on where particular villains are located) and don't tell you anything that a combination of Steal and VP$IP/PFR already can.

I think this hand is a pretty fine example of how using the positional versions can lead you into making incorrect/dangerous assumptions preflop and take lines that you wouldn't take should you consider their overall playing style instead.

Noted. Positional stats make sense from more than 5,000 hands approx. Agree that until that it is just too small sample to do the breakdown for particular positions. Good comment, thanks