Originally Posted by mieczkowusc

Correct me if I am wrong, but 3 betting light also helps to exploit people playing pocket pairs for set odds against a 3 bet, because the majority of the time, you won't have a hand you are willing stack off with, or if you do, its either a higher set, straight or flush.

Even though villain believes that he is getting "implied odds", thinking you are stacking off with AA on a Q72 rainbow to 777, you really are only getting more value out of his pocket pair that he will be folding the majority of the time to a flop cbet. And the time that he does hit his set, he may win a bet from you on the flop, but after that, if you have air, you are just c/f the turn.

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Proper 3-bet sizing destroys their implied odds anyways.. so if they do call with a pp and hit a set against you, not only have they made a -ev play, they aren't ever getting paid.. which is your point.

I agree, suited Aces are great hands to 3-bet light with.. because you float JJ/QQ/KK which likely shut down to your bet on the turn, or get off an ace high flop easily. Or you hit a nicely disguised 2 pair or low three of a kind hand.

Originally Posted by kmind

Couple of thoughts:
1. How is this 3-betting for value?
2. Are you sure SC are the best against a really tight range?
3. Why are you just using the nit for an example? What makes him a good candidate? (You basically answered it in the OP but you should see why 3-betting other players are good too if you use the same logic)
4. I think you should specify that your perceived 3-bet range will be yadda yadda yadda but once they adjust then you should adjust.

Originally Posted by iopq

you shouldn't really cbet unless they'll fold enough or cbet tiny
if the villain's range is QQ+, AK they're continuing with half of their range
I doubt even a nit folds QQ on a jack high board to one bet

Originally Posted by Muzzard

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/3-betting-and-fold-equity-in-fr-nlhe-t77410.html

Originally Posted by Outlaw

You have to cbet 90% of the time because you represented a huge hand preflop.. if you back down on the flop what was the whole point of it. I have played a ton of 3bet pots lately and have had my cbet work everytime but twice... the other 20+ times I took it down immediately.

But that scenario plays itself really.. most of the time the 3bet works and you move on to the next hand.

Originally Posted by kmind

What I am trying to say is:
1. Betting for value means betting with a better hand against his calling range. This is not 3-betting for value, it's 3-betting light.
2. In some cases yeah SC are fine, but you have to think of all options and sometimes flatting SC with great implied odds (in the OP you say that these suck at implied odds?) can be better.
3. I'm saying it all depends on how often villain folds and what part of their range continues and how our hand plays vs. that range.
4. Nice

Originally Posted by Robb

Nice posts, kmind. I feel like 3bettors who know what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish have a big advantage at 10nl and a decent advantage at 25nl. I'm just curious what level are your playing where the nits almost always 4bet/shove w/ AA and KK? If they're as weak-tight as you're describing them, perhaps they'll flat a 3bet? I started seeing the flat 3bet w/ KK+ a bit at 25nl and now a good deal at 50nl.

Originally Posted by Erpel

I don't have anything real to contribute here. I think the initial post is solid and kminds and other comments spot on. I just thought I'd comment on the usage of the term 'for value'.

Everything we do in poker we do because we want to make money on it. We want to maximise our EV - our expected value. It would be acceptable (but awkward) to say that we make decisions 'for EV'.

In poker we also use a term 'for value' which means specifically something quite distinct and different from EV. We bet for value when we rate to be favourites and we want to build the pot bigger that we expect to take home when we get to showdown. It's for value when we expect the showdown to go our way - when we are favourites and we want to see the showdown because we think that maximises our EV.

If we make a bet where we hope to make a profit on the villain folding we do it as a bluff (or semi-bluff). We still do it for profit. We still do it to improve our EV. But 'for value' means something else so we don't do it for value. We do it as a bluff.

Originally Posted by kmind

No we aren't trying to say what you are doing/thinking is wrong we are just trying to encourage you to think more. But yeah hopefully we can get this thread even more interesting.