3-bet range 25 nl

I'm currently playing on stars and it seems the 3 betting is not used very often most are around a 3-5%. Fold to 3 bet is very high and usually are showing up with QQ+ At this limit would a polarized 3 beting range be effective or would loosining up a little say 3 bet with JJ+ AJs + in position be a better strategy. I was thinking a polarized range to allow better postflop play with mediocore hands. With the weak hand 3 bet like SC and mabye small pocket pairs I could effectively steal some preflop pots while gaining a looser 3 bet range. These hands are also east to fold when called and missed flop. Any thoughts? Theories? Mabye using polarized range at the start of a new table then tightining back up to QQ+?

Is this full ring? I play 25nl 6max on FT and all the regs 3-bet way wider than that. lol, I've got 395 hands on one guy who 3-bets 18%, over 40% from the bb vs a steal, he's ridiculous.

But yeah, your thinking is right on. If they fold alot, you can definitely sneak in some bluff 3-bets and take it down. And small/mid sc's and small pp's are perfect for that. Unless the pfr's range is really tight, flatting these hands is not gonna make much (the small sc's even have some reverse implied odds because of domination issues), easy to fold post like you said because they often miss, but still a shot at flopping big. In fact, suited aces might be better than sc's because your fd can never be dominated and there's some card removal effects vis a vis villain having AA or AK.

So, sounds good, just don't become a 3-bet monkey, then you'll be playing alot of big pots with weak hands which is not good of course.

Thanks for the reply yes I am playing FR. I'm ganna try it out when I get a chance to play. I've been thinking a lot about the 3 bet because a want to try to move up limits soon and I've heard 3 betting is a more common tool used at 50 nl. I'll need to learn more about the 4 bet next. What % would be good for aggressive 3 bettin strategy? I was thinking it would be around 9?

The following is a (slightly modified) repost from last week's 3-bet thread. It's essentially a rephrasing of a lesson Grindcore gives in one of his training videos:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

The way I understand it, you should be 3-betting a polarized range if you think the opponent is likely to either 4-bet or fold, and he won't call very often.

The top part of your polarized range should be strictly for value. So if you want to include AQo in it, you should be willing to 5-bet/shove if he 4-bets. Otherwise, your 3-bet is a bluff and you might as well be doing it with 93o.

If your hand is not good enough to 5-bet/shove, but still playable against villain's open, then flat call.

Now think about the range of hands that are not good enough to flat call. The very top of this range should be 3-bet as bluffs. If Q9s is the weakest hand you are willing to flat with, then 3-bet Q8s. Add as many hands as you feel you can get away with, but start from the top down.

If you think the opponent has more of a tendency to call 3-bets, then your range should be depolarized. Just 3-bet strong hands for value and don't include any bluffs.

---

I've never considered AQo as part of QQ+ but that is just me. Why would AQo have to be apart of your 5bet shove range? I've mostly seen AA and KK 4 betted at 25nl so wouldn't a 3 bet AQ fold to 4 bet be profitable especially if you have established a loose 3 bet range already

It's not part of it. QQ+ refers to exactly QQ, KK and AA. It's not a matter of preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by connorislost

I've never considered AQo as part of QQ+ but that is just me. Why would AQo have to be apart of your 5bet shove range? I've mostly seen AA and KK 4 betted at 25nl so wouldn't a 3 bet AQ fold to 4 bet be profitable especially if you have established a loose 3 bet range already

---

It's just an example. As I said, the post is from another thread. The point of reposting it was not to give you exact instructions, but to give you an idea of how to think about 3-betting situations.

My data at 25nl full ring suggests otherwise, but let's go with your generalization that most opponent's only 4-bet KK+. This still leaves out an important piece of information. How often are opponents calling 3-bets?

If they call a fair amount, then depolarize. You can 3-bet hands like AQo and 99 for value and expect to get called with worse. Rarely will you get 4-bet, and when you do, it's an easy fold.

If your opponents rarely call, then you can't 3-bet those hands for value. Your hand plays poorly against both their 4-bet range and their calling range. 3-betting turns your hand into a bluff, which is a waste. However, the hand will usually play very well against their PFR range, which is typically much wider. So you polarize. 3-bet QQ+/AK for value, flat all your hands that play well against their PFR range, and mix in a few 3-bet bluffs with hands that aren't good enough to flat.

All this is assuming that your opponents are observant and that you need to care about your stats. If they won't adjust, I still think you should take the above advice, but mix in a lot more 3-bet bluffs with the bottom of your range. Against opponents that fold to 3-bets 90%, sometimes you can just 3-bet any hand that you're not flatting.

Ok I think I understand a little better. Including AQ in your 3 bet range takes away from value by better hands like QQ+ 4 bet overtop and worse hands folding so its taking away any value during postflop play and this could only be counteracted by 5 bet shoving as basically a bluff so I might as well just flat and 3 bet with the low end of my range as a bluff? I think I misunderstood your first post. Thanks for the replys I really appreciate it. Working on something simple like a 3 bet range has really opened up another level of postflop play 4 bet and 5 bet shoving. Any tips suggestions articles or threads about advanced preflop play? Would those be effective at 25nl or is that more of a tool used at higher stakes?

You can create a pretty specific strategy if what you mentioned really is the case in your OP. You should be doing some maths to figure out how often you can 3bet to be profitable (hint: probably 100%). That's obviously not to say you should 3bet 100% in case they start countering back but definitely look to 3bet A LOT more. And yeah I would for sure be polarized with smaller PP most being my favorite to do it with followed by the lower SC. I also wouldn't add Ax/Kx stuff as a bluff because when we 3bet and the flop is like Kxx or Axx, assuming they call with like TT-JJ/AQ then cbet bluffing 100% of the time will be profitable. Then, when the flop is like 652r and we hold 65/43/22 etc. they won't fold. So we give ourselves more flops to cbet with as well as create a situations in which villain won't fold when we have twopair+. Do you understand this? We're creating as many possible +EV situations as we can here.

Thanks this is really helpfull he past few sessions I have been using a more aggressive preflop game and could really see how it opens up opportunities. I read an article of effectively polarizing on 2+2 and think I understand its usage better. The best thing I saw on my sessions was that my aggressiveness factor and frequency went up a substantial amount. I was even able to 4 bet bluff against the blinds in the CO effectively which was one thing I was scared to try. I'm goin to need to work on narrowing my polarization range so my play is not so spewy I found myself 3 betting 9 10 and other medium hands wich I think would have more value just calling. I'll try 3 betting SPP I was usually just flatting trying to see a set on flop

Well done. I'm still too much of a pussy to 4-bet bluff most of the time.

You should 4bet VERY rarely at these stakes esp. FR I imagine. And if you do at least make a bet size where you can get away form it if you want to fold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmind

You can create a pretty specific strategy if what you mentioned really is the case in your OP. You should be doing some maths to figure out how often you can 3bet to be profitable (hint: probably 100%). That's obviously not to say you should 3bet 100% in case they start countering back but definitely look to 3bet A LOT more. And yeah I would for sure be polarized with smaller PP most being my favorite to do it with followed by the lower SC. I also wouldn't add Ax/Kx stuff as a bluff because when we 3bet and the flop is like Kxx or Axx, assuming they call with like TT-JJ/AQ then cbet bluffing 100% of the time will be profitable. Then, when the flop is like 652r and we hold 65/43/22 etc. they won't fold. So we give ourselves more flops to cbet with as well as create a situations in which villain won't fold when we have twopair+. Do you understand this? We're creating as many possible +EV situations as we can here.

---

There are a lot of good reasons to have Ax and Kx in your 3 bluff range. (Mostly from how card removal will effect the frequency in which you get 4 bet) Your assumption that villains will always fold on K high boards with TT-QQ and will not fold on smaller boards that we miss is a bit mis leading. We do not always need to c bet after we 3 bet and this includes times when we flop top pair with a hand like A4s for example. We can instead, choose to check back and maybe fire turn and river or sometimes just fire river for value with a disguised top pair hand.

One thing I wanted to clarify is if you decide to use a polarized range you should understand the reason WHY you're doing it, rather than just doing it because you heard it was the best/easiest way to develop a 3 betting strategy. The best way of deciding what type of range to use is to figure out how villain is likely to react to 3 bets in general. Having a polarized range IN POSITION is most commonly used to exploit TAG players who will likely just fold marginal hands and 4 bet monsters. Example1: TAG opens with KJs from MP, we 3x it with 45s from the CO and the TAG folds. Example2: TAG opens with KK from MP, we 3x with 45s from CO, TAG 4 bets, and WE have a super easy fold.

What if we are playing against a player who is more likely to just call with marginal hands instead of playing raise or fold? We will probably not want to 3 bet with hands like 45s but just increase our value range to maybe KQ+ 99+ and drop our bluffs since he calls a lot. Note that this is no longer a polarized range, just a widened value range.

While we are OUT OF POSITION the situation changes a lot because of our perceived range when we are in the blinds. I thought a lot about this after reading Meeloche's "Balance" article that Renton posted on FTR. Basically, thinking players are expecting us to have a good amount of marginal hands in our range when we 3 bet late position opens from the blinds.

Because of this, what is likely to happen is that our 3 bets will be called by a wider range AND we will be OOP. I have seen this a lot in BFP vids where instructors are liberally defending in 3 bet pots with hands like 86s 75s etc based completely on the perceived ranges of players 3 betting from the blinds.

It has almost reached a point where we no longer NEED to have any bluffs at all in our ACTUAL range when we 3 bet from the blinds because we ALREADY HAVE BLUFFS in our PERCEIVED range. For the most part it will be a mistake to have a polarized range containing bluffs here because villains will be (correctly) defending very often from the CO and Button. We can take advantage of this by implementing an unpolarized VALUE 3 bet range.

In the above situation, villains will now often defend (incorrectly) vs our 3 bet range that he THINKS contains enough bluffs, but actually only contains VALUE hands.

Edit: I do not play FR so I do not know how aggressive your games are. If you feel that most people are still folding to 3 bets a lot no matter what, then you may be correct in just using a polarized range against most players even when OOP. However there will still be players in which you may not want to be polarized against. Anyway, If you decide to move up or give shorthanded games a go, you will definitely need to adjust your ranges accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleanup.that

(Mostly from how card removal will effect the frequency in which you get 4 bet)

---

Card removal != having blockers

That is all.

cleanup - you do realize that OP's question was about very tight players, right? Or at least that's what was assumed on my end. I also never said we should be cbetting 100% of the time. But yeah I think you are right in having some Ax hands but I'd rather have the others if they're as tight as I imagined what OP was talking about.

I agree with your post and I'm pretty sure my post is on the same page as yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icanhastreebet

Card removal != having blockers

That is all.

---

Yes, having blockers to hands in which villain will most likely 4 bet you with.

Kmind- I know you never said anything about c betting 100% I was just trying to explain how we could still get value from under pairs when we do manage to out flop them.

As far as 3 betting players who only continue with a tight range, Small SCs generally have a tad bit more equity when called compared to Ax Kx type of hands