Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

**spoonitnow** · 10-09-2008 04:30 PM

Here's another one I keep getting asked about, so I'm going to break this down as simple as it can get with a chunk of something I've written up for a coaching session later. When facing a 3-bet, your opponents will have one of three characteristics, and the first one of those characteristics will never happen, so you've only got to deal with the last two. Here are the three possible characteristics:

1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play.
2. They fold too much.
3. They don't fold enough.

The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less.
The adjustment for #3 is that you 3-bet bluff less and/or 3-bet for value more.

Here's an example for #2. Villain is 14/12 with a 30% attempt to steal. Villain opens for 4x in the button, and we 3-bet to 12x in the SB with 72o. We're betting 11.5bb to win 5.5bb, so if Villain folds more than 11.5/(5.5+11.5) = 67.6% of the time then we immediately profit as long as we aren't -EV post-flop (which we can always prevent theoretically by always check/folding post-flop). So Villain has to be continuing with more than 32.4% of his opening range, which is around 10% of all hands. To give you an idea of how unlikely this would be, the range {77+, AJo+, ATs+, KJo+, KJs+} is exactly 10% of starting hands.

Here's an example for #3. Villain is a 14/12 who opens UTG with {AQ+, 66+}, and will continue to a 3-bet with {AQ+, 99+}. A 3-bet bluff is no longer going to be profitable by itself, but we can open up our value range a bit with hands that perform well against {AQ+, 99+}. Our 3-betting range becomes something like {AK, JJ+}.

At our full ring games, scenario #2 happens a LOT more than scenario #3.
In our 6-max games, scenario #3 tends to happen a LOT more than scenario #2.

**d0zer** · 10-09-2008 05:09 PM

So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting?

**martindcx1e** · 10-09-2008 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by d0zer

So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting?

you should be 3betting more often than calling vs someone with a high steal % and a tight 3bet calling range.

**d0zer** · 10-09-2008 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by d0zer

So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting?

you should be 3betting more often than calling vs someone with a high steal % and a tight 3bet calling range.

That seems to contradict this:

The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less.

Unless you meant 3bet bluff more.

**martindcx1e** · 10-09-2008 06:18 PM

ya i meant 3bet bluffing. if they are stealing a bunch and folding a bunch then we should be 3bet bluffing more often. if our 3bets become bluffs a larger % of the time then that means that they are for value less often...make sense? i don't think he means to stop 3betting your best hands vs. stealers.

**spoonitnow** · 10-09-2008 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by d0zer

So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting?

My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by d0zer

So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting?

you should be 3betting more often than calling vs someone with a high steal % and a tight 3bet calling range.

It actually depends on a few things. Just for a simple example, if Villain had 12bb you probably wouldn't call with more hands than you 3-bet with.

**d0zer** · 10-09-2008 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there's a lot of 100NL nit-regs who's stackoff range pre is KK+. What do you do with KK/AA when they're stealing from from the BU?

**MuddyWicket** · 10-09-2008 06:36 PM

Assume one caller:

1. how much is your standard cbet as % of pot
2. How frequently do you cbet when called?
3. Is top pair good kicker the nuts in a 3bet flop?
4. Aren't we better polerizing our range and not 3betting JJ/KQ/AJ if we think they are playing a wide range?
5. Bluff reraising range should be Axs or mid SC's or both or anything as it is a pure bluff?

**martindcx1e** · 10-09-2008 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range.

So say you are BB with QQ and button raises 4x, and his stackoff range is AA/KK and you call. What are you doing on crap flops like 226 rainbow? When they do have AA/KK are you getting away from your hand cheaper than if you just 3bet/fold preflop? Or does the extra money won from playing against his weak stealing range make up for that?

**Stacks** · 10-09-2008 08:13 PM

Just to add to the long list of questions you have coming in here. You state that if villain is folding often we should be 3b bluffing more often. What would you consider to be a high fold to 3b %? If which case we should be 3b bluffing more often, and not 3betting for value too often, because he is likely to fold.

10-09-2008 09:24 PM

Good post spoon. I was thinking about this last night that it doesn't take long to figure out if villain is #2 or #3 (a few orbits at the most). This is super-exploitable and insanely +EV. Now I rarely 3-bet bluff with 72o because if I do get called OOP, I want some outs. If we're 3-betting IP, then c-betting your ass off against the right opponents is again so ++EV.

**spoonitnow** · 10-09-2008 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there's a lot of 100NL nit-regs who's stackoff range pre is KK+. What do you do with KK/AA when they're stealing from from the BU?

If their stacking off range was exactly KK+, I'd 3-bet AA and call with KK. Here, AA would be the only hand I would 3-bet for value, but I would need definite proof that this was their stacking off range and that they were never 4-bet bluffing, etc. If they are 4-bet bluffing with enough of their range, then the fold equity we gain from KK could be more than the equity we gain from playing it out of position against their [weak] stealing range.

Edit: Theoretically, there could be cases where 3-betting KK is the best play. For example, with 2000bb stacks, if Villain opened 80% from the button to 20bb and continued to a 3-bet with only with KK+. Then the value we get from turning KK into an effective bluff through our fold equity could be higher than calling and playing it out of position.

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

Assume one caller:

1. how much is your standard cbet as % of pot
2. How frequently do you cbet when called?
3. Is top pair good kicker the nuts in a 3bet flop?
4. Aren't we better polerizing our range and not 3betting JJ/KQ/AJ if we think they are playing a wide range?
5. Bluff reraising range should be Axs or mid SC's or both or anything as it is a pure bluff?

1. I cbet a little less % of the pot in 3-bet pots than I do in raised pots.
2. It depends.
3. It depends on the SPR and which pair it is. If you 3-bet bluff with A8s, get called and the board comes 864 then no.
4. No. The idea is to 3-bet hands they're going to be behind when they continue.
5. Hands that aren't good enough to just call with but still have some playability. Blockers also slightly improve your fold equity.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range.

So say you are BB with QQ and button raises 4x, and his stackoff range is AA/KK and you call. What are you doing on crap flops like 226 rainbow? When they do have AA/KK are you getting away from your hand cheaper than if you just 3bet/fold preflop? Or does the extra money won from playing against his weak stealing range make up for that?

The questions you are asking about with this particular scenario are largely irrelevant. If his stacking off range is KK+, 3-betting QQ is a clear mistake. When the flop comes 226, the times he has KK+ and stacks you is very small in comparison to the times he has 77-JJ and you take a nice chunk of his stack.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Just to add to the long list of questions you have coming in here. You state that if villain is folding often we should be 3b bluffing more often. What would you consider to be a high fold to 3b %? If which case we should be 3b bluffing more often, and not 3betting for value too often, because he is likely to fold.

It doesn't matter what anyone's fold to 3-bet % is. You should be 3-bet bluffing some portion of the time if it's a profitable play, and that stat isn't going to tell you that because Villain's open-raising range will depend on his position and who is left to act behind him. If you can't 3-bet bluff profitably, then that means they are continuing to a 3-bet with a sufficiently large portion of their open-raising range. If they are continuing with too much of their open-raising range, that's when we start opening up our 3-bet value range.

If you want to learn more about structuring your 3-bet bluff/3-bet value/calling ranges, you should study this: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...em-t70711.html

**bjsaust** · 10-09-2008 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play.
2. They fold too much.
3. They don't fold enough.

The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less.
The adjustment for #3 is that you 3-bet bluff less and/or 3-bet for value more.

The scary thing is, this should be obvious to anyone giving 3-bet ranges even a bit of thought. Guys, dont hang around waiting for Spoon to give you answers you can mindlessly follow. Think these things through and work stuff out.

**daven** · 10-10-2008 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play.
2. They fold too much.
3. They don't fold enough.
.

if a "2. They fold too much." decided to 4-bet, then you gotta start thinking KK+. You also need to relate these categories to their pre-flop ranges - a 9-2 nit is never a "3. They don't fold enough" cos they always have QQ+/AK....
a 26-24 is unlikely to "2. They fold too much"

and if you're asking about 3-betting, you should also ask which category you fit into. And then think about 3-betting ranges and 4-betting. Position is so closely related to 3-betting action that separating the two is asking for trouble.

**spoonitnow** · 10-10-2008 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by bjsaust

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play.
2. They fold too much.
3. They don't fold enough.

The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less.
The adjustment for #3 is that you 3-bet bluff less and/or 3-bet for value more.

The scary thing is, this should be obvious to anyone giving 3-bet ranges even a bit of thought. Guys, dont hang around waiting for Spoon to give you answers you can mindlessly follow. Think these things through and work stuff out.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Originally Posted by daven

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play.
2. They fold too much.
3. They don't fold enough.
.

if a "2. They fold too much." decided to 4-bet, then you gotta start thinking KK+. You also need to relate these categories to their pre-flop ranges - a 9-2 nit is never a "3. They don't fold enough" cos they always have QQ+/AK....
a 26-24 is unlikely to "2. They fold too much"

and if you're asking about 3-betting, you should also ask which category you fit into. And then think about 3-betting ranges and 4-betting. Position is so closely related to 3-betting action that separating the two is asking for trouble.

Actually you would be surprised. A player's VP$IP/PFR is not often that telling of how they handle 3-bets.

**daven** · 10-10-2008 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Actually you would be surprised. A player's VP$IP/PFR is not often that telling of how they handle 3-bets.

not what i was talking about. The three categories i refer to are the ones you listed = how players respond to 3-bets.

**spoonitnow** · 10-10-2008 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by daven

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Actually you would be surprised. A player's VP$IP/PFR is not often that telling of how they handle 3-bets.

not what i was talking about. The three categories i refer to are the ones you listed = how players respond to 3-bets.

To clarify what I mean, a 26/24 at say full ring is likely to fold so much that a 3-bet bluff is profitable while also having a wide enough calling range that we can 3-bet more hands for value than we generally would.

**daven** · 10-10-2008 08:10 PM

understand what you mean. I figured you meant reaction to 3-bets displayed in an HUD - cos i#m so accustomed to referring to this stat during gameplay. If i don#t have a decent sample size then I play against range more than behaviour - which is i guess what youäre talking about

**sarbox68** · 10-11-2008 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by daven

understand what you mean. I figured you meant reaction to 3-bets displayed in an HUD - cos i#m so accustomed to referring to this stat during gameplay. If i don#t have a decent sample size then I play against range more than behaviour - which is i guess what youäre talking about

I'm finding a quick mental merge of four stats works pretty damn nicely in the 3bet bluff department.... pfr (breadth of range), fold-to-3bet (mainly polarized to "tight" or "light"), 4-bet (has he got the fight in him / maybe stack off light?...), and ATS (for obv reasons, esp if I'm in the blinds). Combine these over a decent sample and you can make a pretty educated guess...

For example, if I got someone on the CO opening wide (pfr=20%) with an ATS that tells me they're prolly positionally aware, who's 90% fold-to-3bet and 0% 4-bet I'll 3-bet bluff the sh!t out of them. Or same villain but with a light 4-bet to shove over with a wider range 'cause they're much likelier to stack off light... And of course, fold-to-cbet is a nice additional lens to give the added possibility of stealing on a miss. Sh!t's not perfect, but if you connect the dots there's often a story there that's pretty helpful.

10-09-2008 04:30 PM #1
spoonitnow View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Best Strat Poster 2012 Join Date Sep 2005 Posts 10,094 Location Trying to FUNCTION	Who wants to learn about 3-betting? Here's another one I keep getting asked about, so I'm going to break this down as simple as it can get with a chunk of something I've written up for a coaching session later. When facing a 3-bet, your opponents will have one of three characteristics, and the first one of those characteristics will never happen, so you've only got to deal with the last two. Here are the three possible characteristics: 1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play. 2. They fold too much. 3. They don't fold enough. The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less. The adjustment for #3 is that you 3-bet bluff less and/or 3-bet for value more. Here's an example for #2. Villain is 14/12 with a 30% attempt to steal. Villain opens for 4x in the button, and we 3-bet to 12x in the SB with 72o. We're betting 11.5bb to win 5.5bb, so if Villain folds more than 11.5/(5.5+11.5) = 67.6% of the time then we immediately profit as long as we aren't -EV post-flop (which we can always prevent theoretically by always check/folding post-flop). So Villain has to be continuing with more than 32.4% of his opening range, which is around 10% of all hands. To give you an idea of how unlikely this would be, the range {77+, AJo+, ATs+, KJo+, KJs+} is exactly 10% of starting hands. Here's an example for #3. Villain is a 14/12 who opens UTG with {AQ+, 66+}, and will continue to a 3-bet with {AQ+, 99+}. A 3-bet bluff is no longer going to be profitable by itself, but we can open up our value range a bit with hands that perform well against {AQ+, 99+}. Our 3-betting range becomes something like {AK, JJ+}. At our full ring games, scenario #2 happens a LOT more than scenario #3. In our 6-max games, scenario #3 tends to happen a LOT more than scenario #2.
	Want to Get Better at Poker Fast?? [[ Join the FTR Chat Room ]] [[ The Process of Learning in Poker (New Strategy Series) ]]
Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 05:09 PM #2
d0zer View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Jul 2007 Posts 4,214	So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting?

Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 05:21 PM #3
martindcx1e View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Mar 2005 Posts 4,337	Originally Posted by d0zer So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting? you should be 3betting more often than calling vs someone with a high steal % and a tight 3bet calling range.
	Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 05:28 PM #4
d0zer View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Jul 2007 Posts 4,214	Originally Posted by martindcx1e Originally Posted by d0zer So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting? you should be 3betting more often than calling vs someone with a high steal % and a tight 3bet calling range. That seems to contradict this: The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less. Unless you meant 3bet bluff more.

Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 06:18 PM #5
martindcx1e View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Mar 2005 Posts 4,337	ya i meant 3bet bluffing. if they are stealing a bunch and folding a bunch then we should be 3bet bluffing more often. if our 3bets become bluffs a larger % of the time then that means that they are for value less often...make sense? i don't think he means to stop 3betting your best hands vs. stealers.
	Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
Reply With Quote

Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

Thread Tools

Display

Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting?

Posting Permissions

10-09-2008 06:24 PM #6
spoonitnow View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Best Strat Poster 2012 Join Date Sep 2005 Posts 10,094 Location Trying to FUNCTION	Originally Posted by d0zer So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting? My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range. Originally Posted by martindcx1e Originally Posted by d0zer So in FR games vs taggy villains with a high steal%, who don't 4bet bluff, and never call a 3-bet without AQ+/TT+ we should be calling in the blinds with the above range more than 3-betting? you should be 3betting more often than calling vs someone with a high steal % and a tight 3bet calling range. It actually depends on a few things. Just for a simple example, if Villain had 12bb you probably wouldn't call with more hands than you 3-bet with.
	Want to Get Better at Poker Fast?? [[ Join the FTR Chat Room ]] [[ The Process of Learning in Poker (New Strategy Series) ]]
Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 06:35 PM #7
d0zer View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Jul 2007 Posts 4,214	Originally Posted by spoonitnow My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there's a lot of 100NL nit-regs who's stackoff range pre is KK+. What do you do with KK/AA when they're stealing from from the BU?

Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 06:36 PM #8
MuddyWicket View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Sep 2006 Posts 396 Location UK, Brighton	Assume one caller: 1. how much is your standard cbet as % of pot 2. How frequently do you cbet when called? 3. Is top pair good kicker the nuts in a 3bet flop? 4. Aren't we better polerizing our range and not 3betting JJ/KQ/AJ if we think they are playing a wide range? 5. Bluff reraising range should be Axs or mid SC's or both or anything as it is a pure bluff?

Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 07:17 PM #9
martindcx1e View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Mar 2005 Posts 4,337	Originally Posted by spoonitnow My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range. So say you are BB with QQ and button raises 4x, and his stackoff range is AA/KK and you call. What are you doing on crap flops like 226 rainbow? When they do have AA/KK are you getting away from your hand cheaper than if you just 3bet/fold preflop? Or does the extra money won from playing against his weak stealing range make up for that?
	Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 08:13 PM #10
Stacks View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Jan 2008 Posts 3,970 Location Im opedipus bitch, the original balla.	Just to add to the long list of questions you have coming in here. You state that if villain is folding often we should be 3b bluffing more often. What would you consider to be a high fold to 3b %? If which case we should be 3b bluffing more often, and not 3betting for value too often, because he is likely to fold.

Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 09:24 PM #11
Guest	Good post spoon. I was thinking about this last night that it doesn't take long to figure out if villain is #2 or #3 (a few orbits at the most). This is super-exploitable and insanely +EV. Now I rarely 3-bet bluff with 72o because if I do get called OOP, I want some outs. If we're 3-betting IP, then c-betting your ass off against the right opponents is again so ++EV.

Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 09:33 PM #12
spoonitnow View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Best Strat Poster 2012 Join Date Sep 2005 Posts 10,094 Location Trying to FUNCTION	Originally Posted by d0zer Originally Posted by spoonitnow My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there's a lot of 100NL nit-regs who's stackoff range pre is KK+. What do you do with KK/AA when they're stealing from from the BU? If their stacking off range was exactly KK+, I'd 3-bet AA and call with KK. Here, AA would be the only hand I would 3-bet for value, but I would need definite proof that this was their stacking off range and that they were never 4-bet bluffing, etc. If they are 4-bet bluffing with enough of their range, then the fold equity we gain from KK could be more than the equity we gain from playing it out of position against their [weak] stealing range. Edit: Theoretically, there could be cases where 3-betting KK is the best play. For example, with 2000bb stacks, if Villain opened 80% from the button to 20bb and continued to a 3-bet with only with KK+. Then the value we get from turning KK into an effective bluff through our fold equity could be higher than calling and playing it out of position. Originally Posted by MuddyWicket Assume one caller: 1. how much is your standard cbet as % of pot 2. How frequently do you cbet when called? 3. Is top pair good kicker the nuts in a 3bet flop? 4. Aren't we better polerizing our range and not 3betting JJ/KQ/AJ if we think they are playing a wide range? 5. Bluff reraising range should be Axs or mid SC's or both or anything as it is a pure bluff? 1. I cbet a little less % of the pot in 3-bet pots than I do in raised pots. 2. It depends. 3. It depends on the SPR and which pair it is. If you 3-bet bluff with A8s, get called and the board comes 864 then no. 4. No. The idea is to 3-bet hands they're going to be behind when they continue. 5. Hands that aren't good enough to just call with but still have some playability. Blockers also slightly improve your fold equity. Originally Posted by martindcx1e Originally Posted by spoonitnow My current approach is that with a hand that I would either 3-bet for value or call with, say QQ, I'll 3-bet if it's ahead of his stacking off range, and just call if it's not. This way I never turn good hands into bluffs pre-flop and I'll be playing with it against a weaker range. So say you are BB with QQ and button raises 4x, and his stackoff range is AA/KK and you call. What are you doing on crap flops like 226 rainbow? When they do have AA/KK are you getting away from your hand cheaper than if you just 3bet/fold preflop? Or does the extra money won from playing against his weak stealing range make up for that? The questions you are asking about with this particular scenario are largely irrelevant. If his stacking off range is KK+, 3-betting QQ is a clear mistake. When the flop comes 226, the times he has KK+ and stacks you is very small in comparison to the times he has 77-JJ and you take a nice chunk of his stack. Originally Posted by XxStacksxX Just to add to the long list of questions you have coming in here. You state that if villain is folding often we should be 3b bluffing more often. What would you consider to be a high fold to 3b %? If which case we should be 3b bluffing more often, and not 3betting for value too often, because he is likely to fold. It doesn't matter what anyone's fold to 3-bet % is. You should be 3-bet bluffing some portion of the time if it's a profitable play, and that stat isn't going to tell you that because Villain's open-raising range will depend on his position and who is left to act behind him. If you can't 3-bet bluff profitably, then that means they are continuing to a 3-bet with a sufficiently large portion of their open-raising range. If they are continuing with too much of their open-raising range, that's when we start opening up our 3-bet value range. If you want to learn more about structuring your 3-bet bluff/3-bet value/calling ranges, you should study this: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...em-t70711.html
	Want to Get Better at Poker Fast?? [[ Join the FTR Chat Room ]] [[ The Process of Learning in Poker (New Strategy Series) ]]
Reply With Quote

10-09-2008 11:12 PM #13
bjsaust View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date May 2007 Posts 6,282 Location Ballarat, Australia	Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting? Originally Posted by spoonitnow 1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play. 2. They fold too much. 3. They don't fold enough. The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less. The adjustment for #3 is that you 3-bet bluff less and/or 3-bet for value more. The scary thing is, this should be obvious to anyone giving 3-bet ranges even a bit of thought. Guys, dont hang around waiting for Spoon to give you answers you can mindlessly follow. Think these things through and work stuff out.
	Just dipping my toes back in.
Reply With Quote

10-10-2008 12:11 AM #14
daven View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message trolling freetrollers Join Date Aug 2007 Posts 7,089 Location soaking up ethanol, moving on up	Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting? Originally Posted by spoonitnow 1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play. 2. They fold too much. 3. They don't fold enough. . if a "2. They fold too much." decided to 4-bet, then you gotta start thinking KK+. You also need to relate these categories to their pre-flop ranges - a 9-2 nit is never a "3. They don't fold enough" cos they always have QQ+/AK.... a 26-24 is unlikely to "2. They fold too much" and if you're asking about 3-betting, you should also ask which category you fit into. And then think about 3-betting ranges and 4-betting. Position is so closely related to 3-betting action that separating the two is asking for trouble.
	don't raise with the straight flush bro, nobody ever gonna call that shit allin, reload, repeat please read: http://www.philgalfond.com/lets-make-some-changes/
Reply With Quote

10-10-2008 12:49 AM #15
spoonitnow View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Best Strat Poster 2012 Join Date Sep 2005 Posts 10,094 Location Trying to FUNCTION	Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting? Originally Posted by bjsaust Originally Posted by spoonitnow 1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play. 2. They fold too much. 3. They don't fold enough. The adjustment for #2 is that you 3-bet bluff more and/or 3-bet for value less. The adjustment for #3 is that you 3-bet bluff less and/or 3-bet for value more. The scary thing is, this should be obvious to anyone giving 3-bet ranges even a bit of thought. Guys, dont hang around waiting for Spoon to give you answers you can mindlessly follow. Think these things through and work stuff out. Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Originally Posted by daven Originally Posted by spoonitnow 1. They play optimally and you can never get an edge no matter how you play. 2. They fold too much. 3. They don't fold enough. . if a "2. They fold too much." decided to 4-bet, then you gotta start thinking KK+. You also need to relate these categories to their pre-flop ranges - a 9-2 nit is never a "3. They don't fold enough" cos they always have QQ+/AK.... a 26-24 is unlikely to "2. They fold too much" and if you're asking about 3-betting, you should also ask which category you fit into. And then think about 3-betting ranges and 4-betting. Position is so closely related to 3-betting action that separating the two is asking for trouble. Actually you would be surprised. A player's VP$IP/PFR is not often that telling of how they handle 3-bets.
	Want to Get Better at Poker Fast?? [[ Join the FTR Chat Room ]] [[ The Process of Learning in Poker (New Strategy Series) ]]
Reply With Quote

10-10-2008 07:14 AM #16
daven View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message trolling freetrollers Join Date Aug 2007 Posts 7,089 Location soaking up ethanol, moving on up	Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting? Originally Posted by spoonitnow Actually you would be surprised. A player's VP$IP/PFR is not often that telling of how they handle 3-bets. not what i was talking about. The three categories i refer to are the ones you listed = how players respond to 3-bets.
	don't raise with the straight flush bro, nobody ever gonna call that shit allin, reload, repeat please read: http://www.philgalfond.com/lets-make-some-changes/
Reply With Quote

10-10-2008 01:37 PM #17
spoonitnow View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Best Strat Poster 2012 Join Date Sep 2005 Posts 10,094 Location Trying to FUNCTION	Re: Who wants to learn about 3-betting? Originally Posted by daven Originally Posted by spoonitnow Actually you would be surprised. A player's VP$IP/PFR is not often that telling of how they handle 3-bets. not what i was talking about. The three categories i refer to are the ones you listed = how players respond to 3-bets. To clarify what I mean, a 26/24 at say full ring is likely to fold so much that a 3-bet bluff is profitable while also having a wide enough calling range that we can 3-bet more hands for value than we generally would.
	Want to Get Better at Poker Fast?? [[ Join the FTR Chat Room ]] [[ The Process of Learning in Poker (New Strategy Series) ]]
Reply With Quote

10-10-2008 08:10 PM #18
daven View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message trolling freetrollers Join Date Aug 2007 Posts 7,089 Location soaking up ethanol, moving on up	understand what you mean. I figured you meant reaction to 3-bets displayed in an HUD - cos i#m so accustomed to referring to this stat during gameplay. If i don#t have a decent sample size then I play against range more than behaviour - which is i guess what youäre talking about
	don't raise with the straight flush bro, nobody ever gonna call that shit allin, reload, repeat please read: http://www.philgalfond.com/lets-make-some-changes/
Reply With Quote

10-11-2008 12:34 AM #19
sarbox68 View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Join Date Sep 2006 Posts 1,113 Location wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from	Originally Posted by daven understand what you mean. I figured you meant reaction to 3-bets displayed in an HUD - cos i#m so accustomed to referring to this stat during gameplay. If i don#t have a decent sample size then I play against range more than behaviour - which is i guess what youäre talking about I'm finding a quick mental merge of four stats works pretty damn nicely in the 3bet bluff department.... pfr (breadth of range), fold-to-3bet (mainly polarized to "tight" or "light"), 4-bet (has he got the fight in him / maybe stack off light?...), and ATS (for obv reasons, esp if I'm in the blinds). Combine these over a decent sample and you can make a pretty educated guess... For example, if I got someone on the CO opening wide (pfr=20%) with an ATS that tells me they're prolly positionally aware, who's 90% fold-to-3bet and 0% 4-bet I'll 3-bet bluff the sh!t out of them. Or same villain but with a light 4-bet to shove over with a wider range 'cause they're much likelier to stack off light... And of course, fold-to-cbet is a nice additional lens to give the added possibility of stealing on a miss. Sh!t's not perfect, but if you connect the dots there's often a story there that's pretty helpful.

Reply With Quote