Logic Knot - Part 9 - Facing a 3-Bet OOP

  • Fixed-Limit
  • FL
(9 Votes) 8388


Free membership

Join now


Boomer is back with Logic Knot. In the next two episodes he will focus on the difficulties encountered in 3-Bet pots, especially out of position. In the first part he will focus on some example hands and establish how to play against regular players.


3bet Logic Knot series stats Theory Video

Comments (31)

newest first
  • EuanM


    Enjoy the video and please keep the comments in English!
  • Boomer2k10


    Hey guys:

    44:50 For those of your concerned I'm pulling this number completely out of my backside I'll just show you how I came up with it.

    We're offering our opponent 9-1 immediately so taking the flop in isolation a "balanced" line would come out at 10% bluffs.

    Flop & Turn
    Including the Flop and Turn bets which we're going to make (it's very rare we're not going to 3-barell any hand we have)

    We're now offering our opponent 1.5 in 7. (breakeven line @ 21% bluffs)

    Flop Turn & River
    Opponent now offered 2.5 in 9. (breaken line @ 27% bluffs)

    Very simple problem if we could treat this as an all in however we can't and this is why developing Nash equilibrium strategies for mutli-street games is hard.

    Various cards are going to come which present a good news/bad news situation and equities change drastically, plus various factors like re-bluffs etc

    Any pure bluff on the flop vs a non-K hand will have about 22% equity (oviously hands like 45 will have more)

    A-High with a gutshot has 36% equity vs a non-K and without one still have ~22% equity vs a non-K

    This combined with the fact that this board with a 2 and 3 on it is extrememly condusive to A-high calldowns, or at least "A-High see's river", this means our bluff is going to be more expensive and less likely to work.

    Say the board was K83 I'd be pushing for bluffing more towards the 20% line as your opponent is more likely to have a hand he feels he can't continue with but in this case I'm allowing the board to dictate my play so I come up with the 15-16% line.

    What I'd use this as is a situation as an example of is trying to work out where a decent fairly balanced line would be and trying to work out what side most opponents are on as far as reacting goes (call down? fold too much?) so you can exploit correctly.

    Hope that helps you guys
  • emotv


    nice video boomer thanx.
  • manuuuuu


    it's logic knot part 9 not part 8
  • gomesh87


    Very nice video Boomer! Keep it that way!
  • datsmahname


    20 minutes in. really enjoying this video.
  • HamburgmeinePerle


    Really nice one again.

    I'm not totally convinced of the non4-bet strategy SB vs BB. Do you play that as a default when you play against a decent opponent or an unknown?

    Of course the callingrange is always better balanced and aiming to play smaller pots OOP as can't be too wrong (at least I do 100% agree with it, it makes totally sense), but I think you're giving too many advantages away by never capping there:

    1. Villain has a wide range as he knows that we will oen a lot and he plays IP so he can 3-bet very much in that spot even as a default, as playing in position against a wide range is great.
    Thise leads to im having a wide 3-bettingrange so we can cap more hand for value according to our EQ, but we can also make lots of deceptive caps as he has a wide range and will have to fold a ot postflop and we are not spewing too much according to our EQ because of his wide range.

    2. And if we cap and make our Cbet with AA we have 5 SB in, that's the same as if we call the 3-bet pre and c/r the flop. True, but we showed that our hand likes 60% of the board so our opponent won't give action with hands that would have raised the flop or played call flop raise Turn if we had capped pre.

    I think capping from the SB vs BB even against decent opponents isn't a worse strategy than never capping, we do have a slightly but not totally unbalanced range but we do have other advantages by cappig preflop, having the initiative OOP.
  • HamburgmeinePerle


    one more point:

    there are always boards where we do hav between 50 and 55% EQ, often when we have Ahigh on a ragged board.

    The problem is that we can't always play perfectly according to our EQ when not having the initiative, if we c/r villain could play back (or not calling down worse hands, so our EQ against his callingrange goes down) and make it very expensive for us. Whereas if we do have the initiative we can just bet three times, we can use our EQ in a better way I think.
  • HamburgmeinePerle


    38:00 AQ is a vry good example for my last point:

    You decide to c/c the flop, he checks back on the turn.

    Let's say the river is a blank. You will bet he calls and shows A7.
    So you won 3 BB in that hand.
    If you cap pre and bet all streets you would have got 4,5 BB. That's 1,5 BB more value.

    You give the positive example of not capping when you have AA but you also have to consider examples like that which are more numerous imo.

    I'm capping my valuerange (and some deceptive hands) in SB vs BB-3-bet against an player. Don't know which strategy is the better one but I think both have its advantages.

    If villain recognizes that we cap him light preflop he might be 3-betting fewer hands, so we can openraise a bit more. Another agument for capping in those spots.
  • Boomer2k10


    Actually in the AQ example where I discuss x/r and betting all streets that would get in the same 4.5BB so really it's only when you decide not to x/r and your opponent checks back you lose significant value. This can happen a lot with A-high but A-high functions very much as a bluffcatcher anyway in a lot of situations so the value you miss with these hands is often offset by the fact you don't end up tying yourself to a bigger pot OOP.

    I understand what you are saying and tbh this strategy really revolves around your opponent being able to read ranges. If he can't or is particularly poor at it there's no point balancing your range.

    Blind vs Blind is an interesting one because there can be a lot of spew in these situations and I agree that in a lot of cases, as you'll see me discuss next time, a lot of players, I feel, balance for the sake of it rather than any tangible benefit.

    I would personally say that if you feel your opponent can't take advantage of the information you're giving him, and/or plays weakly when you 4-bet then capping is 100% the superior play.

    However if you're up against someone good or someone who is well versed in HUHU and using position you may want to think about keeping the pot a little smaller, at some stakes this has even come down to open limping the small blind with your entire range you'd play as a good player will almost never fold his BB to a SB open will 3-bet you a ton and generally make your life miserable OOP and he won't be scared by you capping.
  • HamburgmeinePerle


    AQ: the problem is that you can't do anything against winning 1,5 BB less than with cap preflop.

    I don't say c/r is definitely the better play as you can get reraised and you have another great problem.

    But as you didn't cap pre you just can't take the value out of the hand that you would have got if you capped preflop...

    of course it can always bet better to chose a different strategy if you want to exploit someone.

    But as a default, eben versus very strong players, do you really think not capping in BvB situations is DEFINITELY BETTER than capping your >50% EQ (+ some deceptive hands) range? That was the main question I wanted to ask you.

    Let's assume we have an absolutely perfect playing opponent behind us, he has absolutely no leaks, is capable of exploiting us perfectly, notices anything we do.

    Do you think never capping is superior to capping our to range (which is not so narrow as it is in CO vs BU) in BvB? (Assume that we also play absolutely perfect postflop, I only want to know what's the best preflop strategy in that spot).

    Ok we're perfectly balanced. But take the AQ hand as an example. We would have been in a better shape if we had capped preflop!?
  • Boomer2k10


    With AQ specifically the answer is maybe

    Equity-wise, treated as an all-in, yes of course we are, however it's about more than running the equities. A-High is a very difficult hand to play out of position if you miss and is sometimes a lot easier to play as a bluffcatcher, AK and AQ specifically can potentially lose value by not capping pre-flop but not capping is going to lose value with parts of our range and potentially gain it by others.

    If I'm playing vs someone very good who has position on me the last thing I want to do is give them extra information especially if it narrows my range a ton. Even vs a fairly wide 3-betting range vs a SB AQo is only a 60/40 favourite so at most you're making 0.4 of a small bet by capping and also have to deal with the fact that now you're playing a bloated pot OOP vs a good player.

    And vs a player like the one you mentioned you're DEFINITELY better hiding your range. If your opponent can use information perfectly giving him more information is a recipe for disaster and as I mentioned earlier, at most with a hand like AQ you make 0.2BB out of capping.

    If you want to read up a bit more on it read about when the Heads Up Specialists of the time played against the Polaris Bot designed by the University of Alberta. The way Hoss_TBF (Matt Hawrilenko...bascially HUHU LHE Boss at the time and big proponent of GTO-style play) decided to play was to never cap preflop in any situation, even with QQ.

    In position we can work it a bit because we have control over the pot and our opponent usually has to give us extra information post-flop before we act. With unimproved A-high we can bet 3 times for value, bet/bet/check, bet/check/call all things that we cannot do Out of Position and we can still play our value.bluff hands well so we don't risk exposing ourselves post-flop to anywhere near the same degree.
  • DELETEDM_3945785


  • sigauli


    52:00 T8s
    If the did bet the River you were going to fold right?

    And the idea about the donk. What is he actually gonna call there that is worse? Khi? Worse pair ?
  • Boomer2k10



    Thinking about it agaig donking probably doesn't acheive much so that can be written off given the pot's 3-bet.

    If you opponent is super SD bound (i.e. will call KQ-K9 here to a donk on the river) then you have an aruement but that's probably a bit of a rare breed here.

    If he bet it was a strange one because I don't put many straights in his range for 3-betting and I still beat King to Jack High that he may decide is not worth a 3-barrel to get me off a pair so now I would not fold a hand as strong as an 8 here. Lower pair maybe.
  • Boomer2k10


    Not = Now in the Above
  • kavboj84


    Boomer I think your line of thought is flawed in many parts. For ex.:

    "We're offering our opponent 9-1 immediately so taking the flop in isolation a "balanced" line would come out at 10% bluffs."

    Why would be a correct calculation of required fold EQ based on the opponents odds for calling ? That work s only when you are risking 1 bet, but in that particular case with a x/r you are risking 6$ (2bets) to win a 21$ pot, thats 6/27 = 0,22% for alpha and not 10% as you assumed.

    Also when estimating your opponents ranges againts your valuebet you seem to calculate with too loose ranges, and dont take into account that your opponent has a folding range, not to mention that he has a rasing range as well.

    I think you should rework the video considering these.
  • Boomer2k10


    Please see the 2nd post which I made resulting in an overall bluffing % of 27% and to why.

    You bluffing ratio should be made based on the odds you are giving to your opponent because that is how he expoits you.

    If we bet pot all-in on the river in NLHE we should bluff 33% of the time becasue our opponent is getting 2-1 however he only needs to call 50% of the time because we're getting 1-1 on our bet.

    You work out your bluffing odds based on what you give your opponent and your calling % based on what your opponent is getting to bluff at the pot.

    I am not calculating fold equity, I am calculating the % of my range which should be a bluff which in order to maintain balance which is a massive difference so I'm afraid I stick by my thought process there

    Please point out in the video where I make a mistake w/ value bet ranges and I'll look at it
  • kavboj84


    "You bluffing ratio should be made based on the odds you are giving to your opponent"

    You basically want to tell me that your bluff should be successful in the same frequency (the same % of your range) if the opponent gets the same odds to call regardless of the bluff costs.
    Lets say ranges on the flop are the same as in the example @44:50 but the pot is 24$ and you donk out on the flop . You claim that this is the same by determining your bluffing frequency as if you would x/r into a 21$ pot . So you would bluff with the same frequency in both cases because villain gets 9:1 for a call in both examples, doesnt matter if you risk 1 or 2 SB. But it simply isnt.
    Lets say villain plays perfectly balanced, and your bluff is 0 EV in the first case when you risk 1 SB. Then if your costs increase to 2 SB-s (remember: you assume that he calls with the same range cause he gets 9:1 in the second case as well) then your bluff is now -EV (= -1SB).

    As to the vbet ranges for ex @36:45 I would assume that villain would fold 98s,87s K5s K6s maybe(except the club ones ofc) and would b3b or call flop-rasie turn with any Jx ,JJ+ (maybe TT+) and 22.
  • Boomer2k10


    You are confusing fold equity with hand ranges

    In the situation you describe it is not us but our opponent who should be altering his range, vs a donk bet he can make less folds than vs a check-raise because of the odds we're getting. If he's getting 9-1, he's getting 9-1 and 10% of our range should therefore be bluffs.

    So, therefore, if our opponent calls our C/R with the same frequency he's calling a donk bet (assuming he calls exactly correctly when we donk bet) it is him who's making the mistake becasue he's overcalling our C/R's and thus walking into our value range.

    This is of course assuming that the pot ends there and then on the flop. Given it's a 4-street game the odds for calling down may not end up being drastically different.

    This is also why you can fold to a river x/r more than you could a river donk.

    Balance frequencies are used to stop an opponent's actions exploiting you be default.

    i.e very simple situation on the flop. SB opens, we defend BB, Sb bets flop, if we fold more than 20% of the time his bet on the flop exploits us by default because he's getting 4-1 on his bet so if we folded more than 20% of the time his bet exploits us.
  • kavboj84


    Why would our opponent overcall our range when we x/r ? You said that our bluffing frequency is based on the odds that our opponent gets for a call, and it is the same when we donk (lets call it 'range D') and when we x/r (let this be 'range X') , i.e. 9:1. So when these odds are the same in the two example, then our range has to be the same as well (range D = range X). Thus if villain makes a correct call with 'range A' against 'range D', then its also correct to call for him for the same amount of money with 'range A' against 'range X', because D=X.

    Or from a different point of view, if villain has to adjust his range, then hero has to adjust his range as well, because if 'range A' and 'range D' were in equilibrium, and villain needed to adjust to lets say 'range B' to be in equilibrium against 'range X', then D!=X (!= means not equal) and that would mean that Hero had to change his bluffing frequency but you provided that Hero does not adjust, because his odds are the same.

    And clearly there is an unambiguous assignment between required fold equity ,bluffing frequency and costs. To a state of equilibrium in a specific spot belongs exactly one value of each of these three variables, and a change of any variable infers the change of the other two.

    Its like a twin-pan balance( or rather triplet-pan if there was such), if you put more weight on one side, you have to put the same amount to the other in order to maintain equilibrium. Therefore if you risk more for the same amount of money, you need more fold equity, and so you should bluff less, ie. smaller part of your range will be bluffs.
  • Boomer2k10


    I will make this as simple as I can because they is a definite crossing of wires here:

    What's the question you ask yourself in villains shoes when he has to call getting 9-1, whether it's a x/r or a donk?

    "Is my opponent bluffing 10% of the time?"

    That should be counting pot odds 101

    It should not be a big leap from there to say that if my opponent does bluff 10% of the time whatever decision I make is neutral EV so the best I can do is make sure his bet is not profitable by default.

    In that case our opponent is getting whatever price he paid to win the pot (8-1 in terms of a donk or 7-2 in terms of a x/r) so we fold that amount to remain in equilibrium. (~11% in teh first example and ~23% in the 2nd example)
  • kavboj84


    Looks like finally we are getting to the point. So what do you think about hero-s range ? Does it change when villain folds 23% instead of 11%, or its the same in both cases ?
  • Boomer2k10


    In both cases it would have the same bluff/value ratio...which if we're giving our opponent 9-1 is 10%

    If he doesn't apply balance to his calling range (i.e. calls a x/r with the same hands he calls a donk) then he is the one making an error

    If he calls perfectly vs a donk (i.e folds about bottom 12% of his range) and calls the same range vs a x/r we will be exploiting him with our value range, which is the vast majority of our range (90%)

    This is the issue with fold equity style thinking (Tbh it's FTOP-style thinking). Yes in a vacuum, if he folds less that 23% vs our x/r he's making "the right choice" vs our exact hand when we bluff (FTOP) but that is the wrong decision vs the vast majority of our range. Poker is a game of incomplete information you can't play it as if you know your oppnent's hand, that's impossible.

    And conversely if our opponent folds more than 23% vs our x/r (or donk for that matter) our bluffs exploit him.
  • kavboj84


    So since the ranges of hero are the same in both examples, and according to your statement the bluff ratio of hero is the same then his bluff range must be the same as well.In accordance to this statement of yours, imma give you another example (just for the sake of more simple demonstration).

    This time you gonna be my hero, and Im gonna be your villain. The flop is '222', you donk and x/r as previously , and in both cases I will get 9:1 for calling. Also in both cases your range will consists of 6x AA, 3x KK, and 1 bluff hand let this be J7o so you will bluff 10% of the time which is required for being in balance. My range will contain 9 hands 6x QQ and 3x JJ. When will you donk, I will fold one JJ combo which is about 12% of my range, which is the correct amount as you mentioned. Because Im a poor player, I will play shortstacked and I will have no more money left and there wont be no more betting involved on further streets. So my cost is this one bet for calling. Since you bluff 10%, I will loose one bet 9 times, which is -9 bet, but in every tenth case I will win the 10 bet pot, whereby I will win my lost 9 bets back + the one of the tenth call, so luckily I will play perfectly balanced and my EV=0.

    The next time you wont donk, but x/r, and since the odds I get for my call is 9:1, your range will contain 10% of bluffs again which will be the J7o hand. And as I mentioned Im a poor player, I dont know that I should adjust my range, so I wont and I will fold only one JJ as previously.Since your bluffing frequency is the same, you will show me an AA or a KK in 9 cases, but in the tenth case in average I will catch your J7o as previously. My costs for calling did not change,I pay one bet in 9 cases when I loose, and win 10 in one case out of 10, resulting my EV=0 this time as well.

    So the only thing that differs compared to the first time when you donk is your costs, which increase from one to two bets. Now I would be interested where do you get back that extra bet from if my EV=0, or in which exact hand do you exploit me with your value range ?
  • Boomer2k10


    You're talking about the EV of one bet, not of the street

    I gain extra because you've now put 2 bets in with the worst hand on this street and not 1

    When we think about the range we should be bet/folding we don't just bet and then suddently make a decision it's based on the mathematics of the hands we want to put 2 bets in with.

    In the example you've given you're now putting 2 bets in to see showdown and not one where you're a 90% dog.

    Yes the individal decision you have to make on the river is the same because you're treating is as a 1-bet problem. In your eyes facing a x/r is exactly the same as facing a donk (I'm getting 9-1) when in fact it's a totally different animal because the maths of the street play out very differently.
  • kavboj84


    Which two bets are these ? A call costs only one bet and this is the only time when I put money in the pot. So how is this gonna be two ? I dont understand..
  • Boomer2k10


    So what is your original bet on the river, in order to get x/r'd, if not a cost to you?

    What you are saying is that your bet/calling range on the river (In a 6BB pot) is the same as the range you'd call a single bet with (In a 9BB pot).
  • kavboj84


    What river are you talking about ? I go all in on the flop with my last bet. And yeah..I think its a hilarious attempt to take previous bets into consideration to defend your argument. In which article have you seen that previous bets were taken into account when catching a bluff ? Should I add then preflop bets to the costs as well ? Cause without them theres no x/r on the flop :D ?
  • Boomer2k10


    I'm using the river as an example becasue it's hyper rare to go all in on the flop so I misspoke

    Whatever street you are talking about you have to take that entrie street into account in order to balance your range, not just the final bet you're calling otherwise by your logic it doesn't matter how many bets do in on 1 street as long as you balance the final bet.

    I am not talking about previous streets I am talking about the current one.

    This is not a 1-bet decision, it's a street decision

    Your goal is to make me indifferent to bluffing, I need a x/r bluff to suceed 23% of the time to breakeven, so fold 23% of the time, ergo bluff EV neutral. My 10% range also makes you indifferent to calling down becasue you're getting 9-1 and will win 10% of the time with a bluff-catcher.

    In logical terms, how can a range which calls over twice as much as it "should", by your own fold equity laws, be good against a range which is 90% value?

    How can a bet/call range in a 6BB pot be the same at a call of a single bet in a 9BB pot? When the "bluffer" is risking more why should we call with the same range as when he's only risking half as much in a bigger pot?

    After 12 back and forth's however I am not going to go on with this:

    If you want an explanation as to why we construct ranges based on our opponent's payoff/bluffing odds I recommend reading The Intelligent Poker Player by Phil Newall (Specifically the chapter on Game Theory, Page 390 onwards)
  • kavboj84


    If I have to take two bets into account by making that call(so the entire street) that means I have to consider this when risking the very first bet before the x/r. This is due to the fact that you cant take back money from the pot, if that bet is in it is lost anyway even if I bet/fold. So as I understand practically my c-bet range (as well as my c-bet/3bet/fold and my c-bet/3bet/call) should not only be balanced against your calling range but all your possible ranges on the entire street up to your x/r/caping range. Now this is the most weird thing I ever heard from you. I haven never seen any calculation following this logic from you in any of your videos that I have seen, and you are not following it even in your previous post, because you say that my odds are 9:1, tho you should say that my odds are 9:2 cause you should count two bets for the bluffcatch. You doesnt even seem to be consequent with yourself. And I have not read P.N-s book,but I would be seriously surprised if he claimed anything like this. Altough everything could be possible until there is a clear proof, so I dont say that it isnt so its just very unlikely based on what I have read about poker.

    Anyway Im gonna continue in this thread: http://www.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=244152

    these video comments are unsuitable for longer converstaion.