Originally Posted by daven

nice post - thanks. Comments/thoughts to come

Originally Posted by Jellodays

People aren't folding to 3-bets 69% of the time, so I'm not sure if you should really be 3-betting these folks just because of fold equity you think you may have. The range you have depends on the villain but lots of people don't fold to 3-bets with mediocre hands. I have it at about 61% in my database.

Maybe it's because its a hypothetical situation in example 2 but I don't see why you would want to flat AK on the button there. You are going to have to fold when he cbets on 2/3 of the flops and in your situation he is folding a large portion of his range to your 3-bet.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

NIGGA DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A RANGE IS MANG

Originally Posted by Muzzard

FYP

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I don't think it's ever correct for us to 3-bet because we are less than 50% against the range Villain stacks off with. It is true that it's possible for a 3-bet with either of these hands to be +EV (fold equity, etc.), but there's more to it than that. First, a call is more certainly +EV.

Originally Posted by daven

First comment, I mostly play on sites with a bet-pot button. This means that 3.5x is the standard UTG open, and any 3-bet is also normally pot or a little less - so the spr issue changes markedly, as do implied and set odds...

in response to the problem as stated.

first of all, in response to your intro stuff
the 3-bet bluffing:
pretty much spot on for the CO vs Button example. It's interesting to extend it beyond the CO so that opponent's holdings are narrowed below a standard stealing range, and also worth noting that the range is dependent on CO stealing AND recognising that the CO is also a steal-worthy position (extended HUD/notes/whatever). Anyway, the range you have stated is something like 22% right? I printed your post and was reading it in a cafe, but I figure my maths will be close enough. Expanding beyond CO, and then adjusting opening ranges and fold rates accordingly is interesting as it narrows our 3-betting range/frequency.

The reason I bothered to say this is that when our 3-betting range narrows, we start to move on and run into range merging - which is important in the example given

3-bet value betting
I disagree, because of the value of 3-bet range merging, the very real fold equity against a range broader than QQ+/AK, the fact that very few players playing full-ring 200nl and below 4-bet (even AA/KK!), and that 4-bet ranges = call 5-bet shove ranges most of the time (100bb deep especially). Counter-argument is I guess the value of flatting QQ/AK to merge this range, but villains don't notice...

The problem:
I like this scenario, cos, as you said, it's fairly common - especially if our position is not just UTG+1, but instead extends a little.

Okay, calling is horrible. One caller increases the chances of more callers. AA is horrible multi-way, AK is even worse if we value TPTK or two pair too strongly. Dunno who said . but they had a point.

Folding is horrible because the UTG open range is far wider than QQ+/AK for all but the nastiest of nits - so our potential fold equity is important.

Assuming that the table hasn't adjusted to us yet, then our UTG+1 3-betting range has credibility, meaning that I think we're folding to a decent 4-bet behind without KK/AA. Worth noting though that a visibly weak 3-bet increases the chance of being 4-bet...

Min-3-betting here doesn't make sense if UTG range is standard like 66+/AK/AQs/One polarising 45s etc hand. Fold equity is big against this range (and the 3-bet is also a value-bet rather than a bluff vs this range) but is obviously dependent on bet sizing, as is the likelihood of seeing a flop multi-way (unless we're up against a serial squeezer I guess?). Fold equity decreases as 3-bet sizing decreases, until, as euph said, 77 is snap-calling our min-raise. I don't like betting less with QQ here than I would with KK. Your reason for betting less than in the CO vs button situation is the increased likelihood of opener or someone left to act holding a hand that calls or 4-bets, but against common ranges we still have enough fold equity with a standard 3-bet size. I think standard -1bb is good here with any hand we choose to 3-bet. Also consider that UTG isn't auto-4-betting the QQ+ range, and that 4-bet range=all-in range. And that doesn't leave us with a particularly complicated spr situation if villain 4-bets, or if we do see a flop.

so, yeah. I thought about this a bunch, and 11bb is my answer if 12 is your standard in the co vs button example, but i like 12 as well. As low as 10.5 is probably fine, but less is horrible. Funny how closely this ties to my AT post earlier, but that was all about situation rather than a generic cover-all. Also interesting that in this thread some would accept my accidental 3-bet sizing as ok cos it's pretty close to 2.5x, but in that thread it got slammed.... not enough imagining actually applying the theory being discussed here in practice?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

As far as the problem at hand is concerned, what's becoming interesting to me now is what happens whenever we 3-bet to a size deemed smaller than "standard" and then get 4-bet.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Thank you for your well thought-out reply.

With the AKo/UTG+1 situation, in IRC we were narrowing down options based mostly on which "downside" we thought was the easiest to handle. That is, the downside of 3-betting was deemed by most to be easier to deal with than the downside of calling, so then we started to consider the downsides of various 3-betting sizes.

As far as the problem at hand is concerned, what's becoming interesting to me now is what happens whenever we 3-bet to a size deemed smaller than "standard" and then get 4-bet.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

If UTG raises and we have AK in some horrible position that forces us to 3bet (because calling is not the best play) how bad is folding AK here? Surely thats a relativly minor mistake if we feel we dont play the spot well/ cant find a good way to play it.

Originally Posted by Keilah

I've not read thru the thread yet, but I did the math on just this subject a couple weeks ago when my internet was no good.

I found that unexploitable preflop play involving 3-bets and 4-bets is looser than most people play, a useful lesson.

I think probably people who 3-bet SHOULD be making a small instaprofit preflop since their 3-bet range (value and bluff) is typically tighter than your LP open raising range, and if you don't allow them that small profit, you're setting yourself up to lose a lot more postflop.

Originally Posted by Im_new

I think this is dead on, though it is exploitable once the table begins to understand that you are 3-betting widely when you're in position. (This will increase the frequency of your 3bet being shoved over/ 4-5 bet, which would lead to a natural fold.)