Questions regarding 3b/4b etc. [long]

I recently moved up to 50nl on Stars (recently = 2 days ago) and it has me pondering a few more concepts. As a quick disclaimer, I don't quite know how relevant this will all be at my current 50nl stakes, as the players are still pretty dense and not adjusting etc., however, I do know of a few regulars who do understand these concepts and 3b light, as well as they have the ability to 4b bluff etc if need be. I hope to be moving up to 100nl in a month or so and then higher after that, so I would like to already be introduced to these concepts and beginnging to understand them as soon as possible. So give me any help possible please.

Currently, I'm still in the microstakes mindset of 3bing pretty much solely for value [QQ+, AK, AQ (player dependent)]. Now, if we go by the ABCD theorem, hands such as the ones listed about would fall into Range A hands, which I'm willing to either call/raise a 4b with and felt preflop or after the flop (usually). Next, I realize we would want to create a range that we feel is profitable to call with (ie. Range B). This range would include hands such as scs, small-mid pp (given set odds), and some broadways.

So my first question is regarding this calling range (I know it's not in the thread title). How do you determine the calling range effectively? I mean I know it's player dependent, but is that mainly it? Because the part that confuses me is this. If a tight player opens he generally has a strong range, therefore it would seem that we would want to limit our 3betting and calling ranges because he can generally have those dominated (excluding hands that rely on implied odds). So hands like AJ, and KQ, I wouldn't think are profitable to call against rather nitty opponents (10/8ish). But at the same time, because they are playing tight, their 3b calling range is also rather tight, so it would make sense to 3b them lighter as they will usually toss all but their strongest hands (especially if they are off the weak/tight genre). So I don't kow how to adjust my 3bing and calling ranges against these players. I'm thinking I would move hands like KQ, AJ into the 3bing range, but as bluffs maybe, because if I call I'm dominated by a good portion of their range? Is this even close to being correct on how to approach 3bing and calling ranges against tight players by 3bing them more with a wider range?

My next question is the same but again loose players. As they are opening a wider range would I be better off opening my 3bing range to include hands like AJs, TT+, as I am ahead of alot of their range preflop. OR do those hands have more value in calling as loose players are more likely to stack off weaker postflop with say a dominated hand like A7 on Axx board? Hands such as those dominated hands that they might toss to a 3b preflop? So would I have more value calling with hands here against loose players?

Next is determing a good light 3bing range. As I said I know Range A is 3betting for value. And range B (once I find it from the earlier questions) is calling profitably. Range C would be hands just below Range B that I don't feel I can call profitably, but has some sort of value if I were to 3b bluff with and get called. Hands such Axs, Kxs. But those are really the only hands I can think of that fit the bill here, am I'm not certain about those. By 3betting these hands as bluffs, not intending to call a 4b, not only would we be making it harder for our opponents to determine what our 3bets mean, but they also have some value when called ( I think). So is a solid light 3bing range something like [JJ+, Axs, Kxs]? Or am I missing something, and should I throw in some suited connectors into the mix (I am unsure about the SCs as I've heard yes and no, so...)?

Okay now that i have a 3bing light range, let's assume my opponent is 3betting me light. How should I approach 4bing? Well first off what's a good 4b size? Assuming I raise to 4x and they repop me to 12x, should I be 4bing to something like 28x-30x ($14-$16)? I realize there will be times when that number differs, such as history, player, and stack sizes, but just wondering on average.

Next I'd need to look at a 4bing range. Obviously with such strong hands as KK+, AK (?), we could 4b for value against a light 3bettor. But what about our calling and bluffing range? I'm rather stumped here, so I don't have much to offer. Do we 4b hands like A2s-A5s as bluffs to even out our 4bing range?

And the same goes with a 4b calling range and a 5bing range (if need be).

I understand this was long and fairly jumbled, but if you stuck with me this far, thanks for taking the time to read and I hope you add to it in some way. I'm really wanting a rundown on how to adjust to a light 3bettor and how to implement it as need be, and how to effectively do everything that comes with it (balancing my range, 4/5betting for value and bluffs, and creating some pretty decent betting and calling ranges). If you could explain to me that it would be great.

XxStacksxX

alright, no responses, so ill give some some atrocious ones and force an issue so there!

say a tight player raises, like 8% of hands, then we can reraise profitably with the top 7% of hands (just barely). So, a good range to consider 3betting or calling would be 88+, ATs+, KQs, AKo since these are ahead of the 8% tight players raising range that includes weaker kings and aces. Then of these, TT+, AQs, AK0, AKs are the hands that are more or equal to 50% equity vs the range (ignoring position of course). With 99,88, AJs, ATs, KTs+ and AQo being remaining and slgith underdogs against his range. The former group we can create an A range
A: QQ+, AK
where we are strictly raising for value.
B: TT-JJ, AQs are left, and since they are more than 50% (barely) we can profitably call
Whats left goes to the C and D
C 88, 99, AJs, AQo, KQs
D ATs KTs, KJs

with the reasoning that D we never have any idea where we are in the hand while C still has some potential.

Alright, now of C, 99 and AQ have the best chance of beating his range still of these hands, so we can move them into A as a bluff. These are the ones we fold if 4b, but give us enough chance of winning if just called. Leaving
A 99, QQ+ AQo+ AKs
B TT-JJ, AQS
C 88, AJs, KQs
D ATs KTs KJs

Now against a wider raising range, we would be able to 3bet wider as well. Say the raiser raised 11% of hands (again ignoring position) Then a 3b range of 88+, A9s+, KTs+, QTs+, AJ0+ KQo shows a slight profit and we can redo the proscess thus widening ABC and D.

Obv this is using pokerstoves crap range determiner, and KTs is probably less likely to be in the range than say 76s or A5s but by adjusting these for what we think that 7% raising range is we can again alter our ABCD.

as to the size of the 4b, i like just doing a standard 3x amount. Less might get called to often, which is something we wont want when we add in the bluffing hands to the 4b range.

With the 4b bluffing range, an op will probably assume we do this with KK+ and AK, but mainly KK+ . I like the number of hands you chose to add to the 4bet range because i think the number of combos is just a bit larger than that for KK+ and AK, but i dont like what they are. I ran some pokerstove calculations, and most weaker hands except total junk fair as a 33% underdog to win against a 7% range. I assume 7% because that is a standard tagg player but probably also a light 3bettor's range. I think instead of the aces, QJs, JTs and T9s would be better candidates. While these fair slightly worse, i think they are less likely to be dominated and have outs against more hands as well as having more straight draws than the aces. Also, should our 4b get called, flush and straight possible boards give us an option to push with a good number of outs should we get called, while looking exactly the same as KK+ or AK.

I is a noob, so any other noobs reading should by no means blindly follow this. This is just an attempt at answering stacks question and get more info in the process when reviewed.

In 50nl FR I think its safe to assume that most opponents arent 3betting light, most oops have a 3bet % of 2-3% which is your standard range.

Sure you can 3bet selective opponents light IP, I have no issues with that. However I really don't think you should be 4betting light vs most players without some kind of history or their 3bet % is way high.

I really don't think you need to be getting uber aggro preflop to beat 50nl for a decent win rate. Sure it's nice to know the theory but there's no point going 2 levels above your opponents understanding of the game. You'll just pwn yourself.

Thanks for the replies JKDS and Muzzard. First off, I understand what your saying Muzzard, and I doubt I'll be 4b bluffing much or anything of that matter. However, as I said I know a few of the 50nl opponents know these concepts and I would like to understand them as much as possible as well in case I do need to apply them. And I do think 3bing light will fair well at 50nl where people still don't do it very often. But I'm a student of the game and want to learn as much as possible and if have the ability to learn it now, why not? I would need to learn when to properly do these things, or I wouldn't really be learning it, I would just be doing it. I intend to understand the whys, and hows as well, as the whats.

Now to JKDS. The one thing I noticed is you said "99 and AQ fair best of the hands so we move it to range A". Just leave those hands in rance C if you feel they are profitable. Range A is hands we 3b for value. Range B is hands we feel is profitable to call with and Range C is just below B in that we don't think it's a profitable call so we 3b bluff because those are the strongest hands we don't think we will by 3bing for value or calling with.

So what we look at first is what hands we think we crush villians range with and we can 3b those for value. This would be Range A, and against a tight player would be something like the standard QQ+, AK.. Next we decide what hands are profitable for a call. This would include alot of suited connectors, small-mid pps (if given the correct implied odds). Then right below those hands we create Range C which is 3b as a bluff. The next strongest hands would be our suited Aces, Suited Kings, Suited Broadways etc. We realize that some of his range has us dominated, however we are hoping to take the pot down and not play postflop really. And if you wondering about Suited connectors and stuff we have already determined that they are profitable as a call. Also A2s is gonna fair better against KK than 89s is. So we have this:

Range A: QQ+,AKs,AKo [2.6%]
Range B: JJ-22,J9s+,T8s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,65s [7.8%]
Range C: AQs-ATs,A5s-A2s,K9s+,QTs+ [3.9%]
Range D: Hands we fold.

So those are the hands, and respective ranges, that we think is profitable against a tight opener. With Range A hands we are 3bing for value. Range B relies mostly on implied odds and we think we can profitably call with those. Range C is the next best hands we feel a call is unprofitable with so we 3b them as bluffs. So this is about the range I'm thinking is good against TAGG (tight) villians.

Against loose opponents things change a little. Range A is rather static as it's the top hands we feel crush villians range. Range B will now be larger and include suited broadays and some offsuit hands as we feel they are still ahead of villians range and by calling we allow a few things to work in our favor (namely, villians ability to stack of light with hands we dominate such as Ace-rag). Whereas if we were to 3b hands like AJs we would think it was somewhat for value, but we would make him fold out hands like A8s that we would have crushed. And now Range C would be the hands just below range B once again so:

Range A: QQ+,AQs+,AKo [2.9%]
Range B: JJ-22,AJs-ATs,KJs+,QJs,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,AQo-AJo,KQo [10.9%]
Rance C: ATs-A9s,A5s-A2s,KTs-K9s,QTs-Q9s,J9s-J8s,T8s [3.9%]
*Note some hands fall in both the Range B and Range C categories.

That's what I think is profitable against looser players openinga wide range. And as I said, I don't think alot of players are 4b bluffing at 50nl without history, so it would make alot of sense to 3b light against most ofthe field at 50nl as they don't know how or won't adjust. So we narrow their ranges after the flop, as well as take down alot of pots preflop and get more action on our monster hands. This is of course just my thoughts right now and would like better players to come critique them.

For what it's worth, I've been mixing in more of my medium strength hands in position when I 3-bet against opponents who play such that I don't think a flat is just plain better. When you're in position then it's really easy to pot control and get maxium value from hands like TT/AQ/KJs.

Out of position is a different story and hence my 3-bet range is more polarized.

Also suited connectors and suited Aces play VERY WELL in a 3-bet pots 100ish deep, even out of position. Putting them in the same range as AK/QQ++ gives them a bunch of fold equity and the pot is so big that it becomes correct to just felt any draw. Finally, when you do gin the flop, your hand is very well hidden.

When building a 3-betting and/or 5-betting range, I basically consider what my opponent's ranges will be for raising in the first place, responding to my 3-bet, and calling a 5-bet shove. Similarly, when I raise and get 3-bet, I consider what my opponent's 3-bet range is, how he will respond to a 4-bet, and if I can call a 5-bet shove, etc. It's pretty easy to figure out what you should be doing since the ABCD line of thought will give you a good idea of how to play different hands, but once you get in the habit of considering this you'll get better at doing it with good frequency.

A quick example: with 100bb stacks, a 16/14 opens from the HJ, and it folds to you on the SB. The BB is a nit like 8/4 or something, so he doesn't offer much for consideration as far as 4-betting you and that sort of thing. You already know how to figure out your value range and what sort of hands you should call with and what sort of hands you should be 3-betting as a bluff with and all that. However, what you probably haven't considered so much yet is how far you're going to stretch that 3-bet bluffing range. That is, where is the cutoff point? KJs? A7s? Q2o? 72o?

Well the typical 16/14 at low stakes will be folding the vast majority of his HJ range to a 3-bet out of the blinds if you don't have much of a history. A quick consideration for his raising range out of the HJ and what he'd be likely to continue against a 3-bet with will show that you'll be +EV by 3-betting any C or D hand as a bluff just from the fold equity, so you'd probably stretch your C range a bit to take advantage.

At the other extreme, if it was a 3/1 who only open raised QQ+, AK ever, and stacked off with his entire range preflop everytime, you'd never want to 3-bet bluff them. If they also tended to stack off with an overpair or top pair post-flop in raised pots, then you could consider extending your B-range (flat calling) to include more hands than it would otherwise since they'll get more value from being more certain to get paid off when they hit.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Also suited connectors and suited Aces play VERY WELL in a 3-bet pots 100ish deep, even out of position. Putting them in the same range as AK/QQ++ gives them a bunch of fold equity and the pot is so big that it becomes correct to just felt any draw. Finally, when you do gin the flop, your hand is very well hidden.

Do your villains generally call you at least 1 street on a A high board?

Some thoughts of mine about playing Axs OOP in 3bet pots:
- I usually do not get free cards OOP on the turn.
- A bet on A high boards usually only get called if villain has an A himself.
- I don't double barrel much OOP.

Those reasons made me conclude a while back that 3betting Axs for me, at my stakes, is not a good thing.

Am I considering other points than you, or do our images and stakes just play totally different?

Originally Posted by minSim

Originally Posted by Fnord

Also suited connectors and suited Aces play VERY WELL in a 3-bet pots 100ish deep, even out of position. Putting them in the same range as AK/QQ++ gives them a bunch of fold equity and the pot is so big that it becomes correct to just felt any draw. Finally, when you do gin the flop, your hand is very well hidden.

Do your villains generally call you at least 1 street on a A high board?

Some thoughts of mine about playing Axs OOP in 3bet pots:
- I usually do not get free cards OOP on the turn.
- A bet on A high boards usually only get called if villain has an A himself.
- I don't double barrel much OOP.

Those reasons made me conclude a while back that 3betting Axs for me, at my stakes, is not a good thing.

Am I considering other points than you, or do our images and stakes just play totally different?

You're making the wrong conclusion with those points you made there, assuming they are true, which isn't necessarily the case, but no matter. Axs are very good hands for 3-bet bluffing since they act as blockers for AA, AK, AQ and so decrease the possible portion of your opponent's range that will generally continue.

Don't take this as an insult, you and Fnord are way better players then me, and I posted my thoughts mostly because it's not the general thought and I'm not 100% confident about the conclusions I made, but:

I agree the A being a blocker is an argument, but I doubt it's that deciding tbh.
Take Qx for example, it's a blocker for AQ and QQ, so AK is would be the only difference. (it's there, but it's not thát big a part of his range)

Also, AA and AK are usually 4bets, which means I'm getting away relatively cheap when they do so. Of course it's not great to get 4bet, but it's better then being against a relatively wider calling range postflop which will cost me more as those streets are more expensive.

Not having the A also means the flop+turn will come A high more often, which greatens my postflop bluffing oppertunities when called preflop.

Originally Posted by minSim

Don't take this as an insult, you and Fnord are way better players then me, and I posted my thoughts mostly because it's not the general thought and I'm not 100% confident about the conclusions I made, but:

I agree the A being a blocker is an argument, but I doubt it's that deciding tbh.
Take Qx for example, it's a blocker for AQ and QQ, so AK is would be the only difference. (it's there, but it's not thát big a part of his range)

Also, AA and AK are usually 4bets, which means I'm getting away relatively cheap when they do so. Of course it's not great to get 4bet, but it's better then being against a relatively wider calling range postflop which will cost me more as those streets are more expensive.

Not having the A also means the flop+turn will come A high more often, which greatens my postflop bluffing oppertunities when called preflop.

You're very very very much missing the point, which is not necessarily through fault of your own, but I will try to illustrate with a different degree of clarity.

Suppose you have a choice between 3-bet bluffing someone with either A5s or 72s. Then A5s is obviously the better choice, and there is no argument against that. It simply plays better and has an important blocker which takes away a good portion of the hands he would want to continue with.

Suppose some tight villain only continues against a 3-bet with QQ+, AK, which is not unreasonable, and even an overestimation against a lot of tight full ring players. That is 34 total possible combinations. If you hold A5 you eliminate 7 of those combinations, which is 20% of the hands he would continue with. How can this not be important enough for consideration?

You also suggested that you would rather be 4-bet than flat called when you make a 3-bet bluff, which is nonsense. Being called gives you a free chance to improve your hand when you are behind (which you assume you are since you are 3-betting as a bluff) while being 4-bet is an immediate loss (unless we're 5-bet bluffing which is outside of our scope at the moment).

In fact, the very reason we would prefer a hand like A5s to 72s when we 3-bet bluff is so that we can maximize our equity the times that we are flat called. Otherwise, they are exactly the same except for the blocker.

Spoon,

First of all, I agree completely with your arguments.

What I'm trying to point out are certain arguments for 3betting other hands instead of Axs. I acknowledge that I am unsure how to weigh all the arguments and make the right conclusions. Also my arguments aren't 100% true always, but in some there's a point.
This is all a result of me trying to examine pros and cons of 3betting Axs a while back and comparing it to other hands.
(at my most common table dynamics)


Fwiw, I far from meant 3betting random junk, I specifically meant Qxs (maybe Jxs) as a 3bet hand, because:
- Qxs has a blokker to QQ and AQ (not AK, so yes Axs blocks a bit better)
- Qxs has a change of hitting a Q against villains JJ- which is a big part of villains calling range. Axs has that as well, but assuming QQ+ 4bets, flopping TP makes the best hand against that calling range with either Ax or Qx.
(QQ doesn't 4bet always, I play 6max though so calling ranges are usually wider then the QQ+/AK and QQ is at least sometimes a 4bet)

- when I hit my Q with Qx I'll probably get more value from villain then when I hit an A with Qx. (I'm assuming villain continues more often with JJ- on a Q high flop, then JJ- on a A high board)

- The thing about rather getting 4bet was described and interpreted a bit wrong, and I'm not even sure it's a valid point. It's difficult to point out what I mean though, I'll give it another try:

When I my 3bet gets called and my cbet get's called, I'm paying a better hand more then when I 3bet/fold.
Assuming AA and AK 4bet, taking combinations out of his 4bet range makes his calling range relatively larger, which means I'm, relatively seeing, paying off better hands postflop more often.
If I take more hands out of villain calling range, I'm paying postflop less, but folding to a 4bet more, which is cheaper.

Also, with villains at my stakes sometimes calling AJs/ATs and playing fit-or-fold, it's good for me to have the A combo's in his range, because I'll win more flops we both miss.
(again I agree this one could be far-fetched)

- To end; The assumption I made is that very generally people fold on an A high board when they don't have an A. So until they adjust, I don't mind repping it way more often then I have it. Not having the A means the board will come A high more often, which means a profitable bluffing situation comes up more often.

I love this thread. I don't understand all of it, but I love it anyway.

I seem to remember something (maybe even earlier in this thread also) about c-betting not being automatic in 3bet pots. This may have something to do with the emphasis on the Axs type of hand. C-betting is to exploit the opponent likely missing the flop and if c-betting is a less preferred move due to the pot size in a 3bet pot maybe emphasis is given to hitting your own hand rather than the opponent missing his.

That said I think you weave a wonderful argument.

This deserves a bump imo.

lol.. What a feesh! OP is gay too.

Originally Posted by dranger7070

This deserves a bump imo.

I like how Dranger bumps this seven minutes later...as if he wants credit for this bump.

On a serious note, this is a good thread to start at when thinking of 3bets.

Wow, seriously had no idea that this was bumped before me!!! I just went into Stax's profile and looked at some of the threads he started, found this one and bumped lol.

[x] Bump fail