|
|
Let's say in hand 1 your villain, and I'm hero. Your initial opening range is 30% of hands (pretty loose at this game and this position, but anyways). I have JJ. I KNOW I'm ahead of your opening range. This is simple.. I can plug your opening range [30%] and my hand into Pokerstove and I know my equity against your opening range. So a call is going to be +EV here with JJ. Agreed?
Now say that since I know I'm ahead of your opening range, I decide to 3bet. But now, we must look at not your opening range, but your 3bet calling range, or 4betting range. Our decision to 3bet has manipulated your range for the rest of the hand. If we are still ahead of your 3bet calling range, or 4betting range, then 3betting for value is obviously +EV. As we will be getting called by worse hands often enough.
However, if let's say in this case when we 3bet you only continue with QQ+, AK. That is you fold every other hand you opened with, and you either call our 3bet or 4bet us with that range {QQ+, AK}. Well then, 3betting is still +EV in this instance. The reason it's still +EV in this case when we are only getting called by better hands is simply due to our equity when called, and our fold equity. If you are raising 30% of hands but only continuing with 3% then you are continuing 10% of the time, or to put it better folding 90% of the time. If we 3bet a 4xbb open to 12xbb, our raise only has to work 68% of the time. So, yes a 3bet is +EV; however, it is no longer raising for value if villain is continuing with only better hands. And it's likely to not be the most +EV play that we can make in this instance.
So what ArcadianRock was getting at isn't that you should simply call to play JJ at set value. But that instead, if you think that when you 3bet he only continues with better hands then a 3bet is likely incorrect in this instance with JJ. Instead, call and play JJ against his much wider opening range.
Theoretically, you bet and raise because you expect worse hands to call or better hands to fold. If I am greater than 50% equity against the range of hands that villain will call a bet or raise with, then it is going to be a +EV bet/raise. If I'm not, then I must evaluate if calling is +EV. That is if I have enough equity to call given the pot odds I have. If I'm getting 2:1 pot odds, and I have >33% equity then a call is correct.
If I have ~40% equity against villain's betting range, and I'm getting 2:1, then a call is +EV, as I have more equity than needed. A raise for value would be incorrect as I would be behind villains bet/calling range. So the only other thing I must consider is whether it's more profitable to raise as a bluff, than call. If it is not, then since raising for value or as a bluff is less EV than calling, and calling is >0EV (which is the equivalent of a fold), then I should clearly call.
Here you are have enough equity to make a call profitable. Based on your reads and assumptions you do not have enough equity against his 3bet calling or 4betting range. Therefore, a raise for value is incorrect. And I bet if you do the math, with your significant equity versus his opening range plus your positional advantage, a call will be +EV in the long run, than a "bluff" 3bet here. So call and play against his wider range.
This obviously depends heavily on villain and his continuing range. If this particular villain is either calling your 3bet or 4betting with a wider range, such as {99+, AJ+}, then you have enough equity [51%] to 3bet for value and get the money in. However, fold equity also factors into this, and on average you will win more than merely 51% of the pot, because he will fold a significant portion of the time.
|
A few HH's, please don't laugh
, J
, J
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ArcadianRock
