Comments: Sauce123's Simple Guide to Beating SHNL

well all I'm saying, and again, this is with a small sample size.......I pull lines that "make sense" at the NL50 or NL100 level...and it doesn't make sense to anybody so they call with whatevs.

I pull lines that "make sense" at the NL400 level......and they fucking go, "yo, that makes sense, I lay down."


Fuck maybe I'm running good but I love NL400 so far.



Maybe I will stay there and have ISF's babies. Yup, he's having two or more.

George I will say this constructively. The other night when you made an appearance in Vent I pulledup your 50nl table while I was running some tourneys on PS. You had shit for an image early in the session and you tried to run a huge bluff (Ace high) on a player who had already caught you messing around in a pot before and had stacked you in the previous pot.

You must take into account your image+the line you are representing.

again NL50 whatevs

shit how do we get this back on topic?




sorry everyone

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Harry

ISF, what kind of sample size are you basing this off of? I'm using a ~100k sample size and I've only had hands like AJs, KJs, etc.. around 30 times each UTG. I'd think you need a really, really large sample to provide accurate information regarded profitablity for specific hands UTG.

My friend Lyric, who is a 5/10 and 10/20 professional went on a hunt asking all his poker friends if certain hands were winners UTG and UTG + 1. That was the conclusion he came to.

I don't think he tried that hard.

Originally Posted by Ultimate George

well all I'm saying, and again, this is with a small sample size.......I pull lines that "make sense" at the NL50 or NL100 level...and it doesn't make sense to anybody so they call with whatevs.

I pull lines that "make sense" at the NL400 level......and they fucking go, "yo, that makes sense, I lay down."

Fuck maybe I'm running good but I love NL400 so far.

I hear a lot of people say this same sort of thing. I think the love for 400NL you have may have something to do with the amount of money involved, since every raise, bet, and call is a large amount of money for you, it forces you to focus very hard on your play. I think that probably makes you play better and makes it more enjoyable.

but it just seems like I get so much more respect at the higher levels. People can put me on hands instead of just saying "fuck it I call with TPwK" and then they win. This allows me to bluff a lot more than I ever could at lower levels......maybe?

Maybe you have a skewed perception of how much we bluffs, because that's like half Danny and I's posts. But i play 3k hands a day, and the hands half the hands that i post are some of the only really nonstandard hands of those 3 thousand. I was still capable of bluffing people at 50NL and 100NL, but it was in different spots. I floated a lot when i got lead into on a low board, i rarely do this anymore (probably cause the situation come up a lot less). In 400NL it's more two barreling and calling from the blinds planning on c/ring most flops. Also, because of the more passive play of those lower levels, you're going to be a lot more surprised with the holdings people showdown sometimes.

Also, even at 400NL i rarely will try to get someone off TPwk without a decent draw. And, although you may think you are getting someone off it at 400NL, it's possible that in this run you're having, they just have weaker holdings than you think.

Anyways, when are we gonna meet up in sioux falls George?

Maybe you have a skewed perception of how much we bluffs, because that's like half Danny and I's posts. But i play 3k hands a day, and the hands half the hands that i post are some of the only really nonstandard hands of those 3 thousand.

I think it definitely seems this way just from reading FTR

Max, to be honest, I probably played well *and* ran really well. I hit a big hand or two, and mixed in a few bluffs around those hands with lines that made sense, all the while realizing that I had shown down the goods in previous hands, etc...Like I said, it was a small sample size, so that's probably got something to do with it too. Throw in the fact that it seemed like a "dream" table with everyone playing pretty straight-forward, no crazy/tricky players, etc, and you can see why I loved my time at NL400.

About bluffs...Yo, I'm the first one to understand that the hands posted here on FTR don't really convey what type of player the guy actually is. There are quite a few well-known posters on here that have posted crazy hands and everyone gets silly and believes that player runs 30/25 or something. In reality, those players are a lot like everyone else but if you're just viewing one hand it can get taken out of context.

So at least with *that*, I get it. It did/does seem like if you tell a believable story at NL400 you get a lot more respect because you're playing against thinking players, though, like I've already stated.

Anyway, sorry to throw this thread off. Sauce, your points were awesome in the beginning of this thread and I hope you keep posting with the regularity that you are right now. You, along with a few other people here on this site, give me the impression that you can crap gold. And I like that.

wow thats what i call tight aggressive . interesting read but i assume this isnt written with 25NL in mind.

Originally Posted by Zaixer

wow thats what i call tight aggressive . interesting read but i assume this isnt written with 25NL in mind.

It's hard to tell.... give it a try!

nice post. i need to read thru it properly.

3betting a lot pf will give you a really loose dangerous image. you will see players playing back at you a lot more and it will give you so much value for your good hands (in any hand).

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

nice post. i need to read thru it properly.

3betting a lot pf will give you a really loose dangerous image. you will see players playing back at you a lot more and it will give you so much value for your good hands (in any hand).

not always

Just to drop in and say how much I like the post AND the discussion afterwards

Originally Posted by sauce123

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

nice post. i need to read thru it properly.

3betting a lot pf will give you a really loose dangerous image. you will see players playing back at you a lot more and it will give you so much value for your good hands (in any hand).

not always

Agree with sauce, i have a loose threebet image and people dont give me any more action post (besides calling a lot more pre which is a huge mistake).

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Agree with sauce, i have a loose threebet image and people dont give me any more action post (besides calling a lot more pre which is a huge mistake).

I find that alot of players (small sample of experience here) dont now how to adjust yet at my level. they either let you walk all over them or they just become a station, they dont yet figure thye should tighten up/move table if OOP/4bet more which is pretty much all they need to do,no??

i watched stingers last CR vid on CR, anyone check it out?? he was 3betting this guy 4ever and guy never once called his 3 bet PF OOP. only towards the end did the guy CALL to 3 bets OOP.

Ty sauce. This thread is more valuable than gold IMO.

Originally Posted by Da GOAT

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Agree with sauce, i have a loose threebet image and people dont give me any more action post (besides calling a lot more pre which is a huge mistake).

I find that alot of players (small sample of experience here) dont now how to adjust yet at my level. they either let you walk all over them or they just become a station, they dont yet figure thye should tighten up/move table if OOP/4bet more which is pretty much all they need to do,no??

i watched stingers last CR vid on CR, anyone check it out?? he was 3betting this guy 4ever and guy never once called his 3 bet PF OOP. only towards the end did the guy CALL to 3 bets OOP.

i would really like to watch that video.

btw, 4betting takes some guts. you are risking a large proportion of your stack and your opponent might actually have a hand. 4bet bluffing is not so easy.

when i've been 3betting a lot and i suspect that someone is bluffing i will 5bet push hands like AQo or 76s. I did this twice recently with these exact 2 hands and won big pots both times without even seeing a flop.

also, 4betting pf and then folding to a 5bet is a viable option right? you would have about 30% of your stack in the pot when you 4bet (assuming 100bb stacks).
what sort of hand can you fold in this spot? obviously hands like 76s, but hands like ATs you can also fold easily right?

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

also, 4betting pf and then folding to a 5bet is a viable option right? you would have about 30% of your stack in the pot when you 4bet (assuming 100bb stacks).
what sort of hand can you fold in this spot? obviously hands like 76s, but hands like ATs you can also fold easily right?

It depends wht hands you're 4-betting with, and how deep you are. If you're 100bb's deep and you 4-bet, and the guy 5-bet pushes, you're often facing 2:1 on your call.

In this spot, I'd say you should definitely be calling with hands like ATs, because unless he has AA, you are getting the right price at 2:1 for the call. All you need is one live card to make a call getting 2:1.

Originally Posted by griffey24

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

also, 4betting pf and then folding to a 5bet is a viable option right? you would have about 30% of your stack in the pot when you 4bet (assuming 100bb stacks).
what sort of hand can you fold in this spot? obviously hands like 76s, but hands like ATs you can also fold easily right?

It depends wht hands you're 4-betting with, and how deep you are. If you're 100bb's deep and you 4-bet, and the guy 5-bet pushes, you're often facing 2:1 on your call.

In this spot, I'd say you should definitely be calling with hands like ATs, because unless he has AA, you are getting the right price at 2:1 for the call. All you need is one live card to make a call getting 2:1.

AKo vs ATs is about 69% vs 31%. less than 2 to 1!
KK vs ATs is about 67% vs 33%. exactly 2 to 1.
AA vs ATs is 86% vs 14%. way less than 2 to 1!

you don't have the odds to call with ATs and listed above is probably 90% of their range. the other 10% is a bluff which we do beat.
also usually you have slightly less than 2 to 1 in this situation.

Don't look at individual hands, look at ranges. You gotta throw QQ in there, and in aggressive games often JJ/AQs and worse. It's usually a mistake to 4-bet pot and fold to a 5-bet push 100bb deep.

Originally Posted by zook

Don't look at individual hands, look at ranges. You gotta throw QQ in there, and in aggressive games often JJ/AQs and worse. It's usually a mistake to 4-bet pot and fold to a 5-bet push 100bb deep.

AQ is the same as AK which is the same as AJ!
ATs doesn't do better against AQ than against AK.
and QQ and JJ are essentially KK.
i've listed all of this in their range.

i don't know what proportion of their range each hand makes up, but we're behind or even money against 90% of their range!

I just meant looking at the whole range together is the proper way to compute your equity.

One problem with this discussion is that you're usually getting better than 2:1 pot odds. If you're playing 100NL and raise to $4 in the CO, villain re-raises to $12 on the button, you 4-bet to $36 and villain shoves, you're getting 2.13:1 with 100bb stacks. If you raise to $4, villain re-raises pot to $13.50, you 4-bet pot to $42 and villain shoves, you're getting 2.45:1. Obviously any limps or calls from other players give you even better odds.

With 2.45:1 odds (pot-sized raises) you should always call the 5-bet shove. You're right that getting 2.13:1 odds ATs should be a fold to JJ+/AK/AQs+, but it's close. If there's additional dead money in the pot from limpers/callers or villain is willing to widen his range here (maybe b/c he knows you're capable of folding) then it becomes a call.

And from an earlier post of yours:

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

obviously hands like 76s, but hands like ATs you can also fold easily right?

Actually 76s does slightly better vs. JJ+/AK/AQs+ than ATs does.

Originally Posted by zook

I just meant looking at the whole range together is the proper way to compute your equity.

One problem with this discussion is that you're usually getting better than 2:1 pot odds. If you're playing 100NL and raise to $4 in the CO, villain re-raises to $12 on the button, you 4-bet to $36 and villain shoves, you're getting 2.13:1 with 100bb stacks. If you raise to $4, villain re-raises pot to $13.50, you 4-bet pot to $42 and villain shoves, you're getting 2.45:1. Obviously any limps or calls from other players give you even better odds.

With 2.45:1 odds (pot-sized raises) you should always call the 5-bet shove. You're right that getting 2.13:1 odds ATs should be a fold to JJ+/AK/AQs+, but it's close. If there's additional dead money in the pot from limpers/callers or villain is willing to widen his range here (maybe b/c he knows you're capable of folding) then it becomes a call.

And from an earlier post of yours:

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

obviously hands like 76s, but hands like ATs you can also fold easily right?

Actually 76s does slightly better vs. JJ+/AK/AQs+ than ATs does.

lol. really? that's amazing
so you're saying you should call with 76s if you're getting 2.4 to 1 on a shove?
what if you're getting 2 to 1? should you call then? what points should you call at for ATs and 76s?

he's just saying if you ever find yourself in a position where you have to call with either ATs or 76s and you know your opponents range is JJ+/AK/AQs+, 76s does much better because it's got less shared outs.

statistically, 76s is the best hand to win vs AA.

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

so you're saying you should call with 76s if you're getting 2.4 to 1 on a shove?

Yes. 76s is only a 2:1 dog vs. KK+/AK and slightly worse (~2.3:1 I think) vs. JJ+/AK/AQs+.

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

what if you're getting 2 to 1? should you call then? what points should you call at for ATs and 76s?

Pokerstove ftw

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

so you're saying you should call with 76s if you're getting 2.4 to 1 on a shove?

Yes. 76s is only a 2:1 dog vs. KK+/AK and slightly worse (~2.3:1 I think) vs. JJ+/AK/AQs+.

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

what if you're getting 2 to 1? should you call then? what points should you call at for ATs and 76s?

Pokerstove ftw

zook the problem is that AQ isnt stacking off pre for a lot of people.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

zook the problem is that AQ isnt stacking off pre for a lot of people.

Doesn't matter. AQs barely changes the numbers. Did you see that 76s does significantly better vs. KK+/AK than a wider range? The key is everyone's willingness to get AI pre with AK...

it would seem if opps range was AK/JJ+ that AT would fare better no?

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

it would seem if opps range was AK/JJ+ that AT would fare better no?

ATs has 0.15% more equity than 76s vs. JJ+/AK


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.168% 69.21% 00.96% 156425952 2171364.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 29.832% 28.87% 00.96% 65255448 2171364.00 { ATs }

-------------------

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.323% 70.13% 00.19% 192128128 533478.00 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 29.677% 29.48% 00.19% 80773556 533478.00 { 76s }

Depends on the frequencies, which is the inherent weakness with pokerstove. Someone should make an app that lets me say that "Villain pushes AK 100% of the time here but pushes JJ+ only 50% of the time".

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Depends on the frequencies, which is the inherent weakness with pokerstove. Someone should make an app that lets me say that "Villain pushes AK 100% of the time here but pushes JJ+ only 50% of the time".

Actually given the fact that AK at midstakes and high stakes is all in pre much more than any other hand 76s and pp's seem to be the better candidate.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Actually given the fact that AK at midstakes and high stakes is all in pre much more than any other hand 76s and pp's seem to be the better candidate.

My point excactly. So do we want 77 more than 76s in this spot?

Im starting to play 6 max and im following this pretty close as it is how i think it should be played. I didnt understand the fact that multitablers cant really see you 3 bet stats so if you are playing a nitty range pre that you have a TON of fe. Ive only played 4k hands so far but im running about 18/15 and 18ptbb/100 (lol hot) 100 and 200nl. People really just dont call me much and its great.

Also im playing smallish sessions (500-100 hands 6-8 tables), by the time i leave the table people are just starting to adjust (or not at all) and by then im done.

Originally Posted by Trikflow77

multitablers cant really see you 3 bet stats

This isn't 100% true, there's a HUD available for FTP that shows 3-bets. When the Holdem Manager HUD is released it will contain this info as well.

SO PLAY THIS WAY WHILE ITS STILL HOT HOT HOT!!!!

and frankly i dont think a lot of players have the balls to play this way anyway. most are too nitty/passive to 3 bet really light.

Originally Posted by Trikflow77

and frankly i dont think a lot of players have the balls to play this way anyway. most are too nitty/passive to 3 bet really light.

its taken me ~4-5k hands to get used to 3-betting lighter like this, but its definitly been worth it.

Originally Posted by sauce123

example: 20/16 opens in the CO. We 3bet 98s he calls. Flop T74 we bet 2/3 pot from bb he calls. Turn Q we should make a pot committing bet in this situation almost always.

Can someone explain this to me please?

im thinking so that we gain lots of folding equity and cant be pushed out by betting weaker and then being pushed over and not getting odds.

You also want thinking players to know you or they are getting it all in and you are playing for exactly that. Nothing is scarier than realizing someone wants to play for stacks. Shoving does not look as much like a made hand, it looks like you want FE.

example: 20/16 opens in the CO. We 3bet 98s he calls. Flop T74 we bet 2/3 pot from bb he calls. Turn Q we should make a pot committing bet in this situation almost always.


the reason for this is that we dont need him to fold all that often for betting>checking

this is because his hand range in this spot is polarized towards JJ-22, JT, T9, 98, 87, 76 with a few combos of QQ-AA thrown in.

against this range if we get it in we r still only about a 4 to 1 dog which while bad isnt terrible. Also, the majority of these hands r folding a substantial % of the time as we are repping AQ+ with our turn bet.

Originally Posted by sauce123

example: 20/16 opens in the CO. We 3bet 98s he calls. Flop T74 we bet 2/3 pot from bb he calls. Turn Q we should make a pot committing bet in this situation almost always.


the reason for this is that we dont need him to fold all that often for betting>checking

this is because his hand range in this spot is polarized towards JJ-22, JT, T9, 98, 87, 76 with a few combos of QQ-AA thrown in.

against this range if we get it in we r still only about a 4 to 1 dog which while bad isnt terrible. Also, the majority of these hands r folding a substantial % of the time as we are repping AQ+ with our turn bet.

wow this seems so foreign to me. thank you for sharing man. what changes if you have position and are checked to on the turn?

Also...

Originally Posted by sauce123

In a Raised Pot:
...
Bluff all scare cards on turn or river if given an opportunity.

So, for example, do you mean if you cbet the flop which has 2 spades and villain calls and the turn brings the 3rd spade you bet again here?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

So, for example, do you mean if you cbet the flop which has 2 spades and villain calls and the turn brings the 3rd spade you bet again here?

YES!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Jager

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

So, for example, do you mean if you cbet the flop which has 2 spades and villain calls and the turn brings the 3rd spade you bet again here?

YES!!!!!!!!

...because if villain had a draw on the flop most players even at 100NL will raise your c-bet. Obviously this would be opponent dependent (i.e. a loose-passive floating on a 2spade flop is more likely to have a draw than a TAG). Typically though villain would be holding a middle pair type hand and is hoping to win the pot if weakness is shown on the turn.

Originally Posted by Jager

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

So, for example, do you mean if you cbet the flop which has 2 spades and villain calls and the turn brings the 3rd spade you bet again here?

YES!!!!!!!!

uhhhh when you know villain raises his draws, yes, but not all the time, but when villain doesnt hell no.

It's pretty basic ISF theorem, a lot of villains a low stakes call with draws, or only raise them on rare occasion, therefore he is able to show up with a flush more than we can because we bet so many other hands.

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Depends on the frequencies, which is the inherent weakness with pokerstove. Someone should make an app that lets me say that "Villain pushes AK 100% of the time here but pushes JJ+ only 50% of the time".

You can do this in PokerStove. In the lower right corner of the hand selection chart, there are a bunch of suit combos. Disable half for the hand that he only plays 50% of the time and voila! You see AK 100% and JJ+ 50%.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by sauce123

example: 20/16 opens in the CO. We 3bet 98s he calls. Flop T74 we bet 2/3 pot from bb he calls. Turn Q we should make a pot committing bet in this situation almost always.


the reason for this is that we dont need him to fold all that often for betting>checking

this is because his hand range in this spot is polarized towards JJ-22, JT, T9, 98, 87, 76 with a few combos of QQ-AA thrown in.

against this range if we get it in we r still only about a 4 to 1 dog which while bad isnt terrible. Also, the majority of these hands r folding a substantial % of the time as we are repping AQ+ with our turn bet.

wow this seems so foreign to me. thank you for sharing man. what changes if you have position and are checked to on the turn?

Also...

Originally Posted by sauce123

In a Raised Pot:
...
Bluff all scare cards on turn or river if given an opportunity.

So, for example, do you mean if you cbet the flop which has 2 spades and villain calls and the turn brings the 3rd spa
de you bet again here?

i consider the third spade hitting to be a scare card for our range rather than villain's. If we are the PFR our villain is def more likely to have a spade draw than we are in his range. If we bet when the spade card hits we are reppping combo draw/TPTK/Overpair/As x/ air/ set/made flush in about that order of importance. So against this range of ours a thinking villain is likely going to muck mid pair no spade but call with anything better, a range which really isnt all that different from his check/call of our cbet on the flop...

conclusion: betting the turn when a flush hits as the PFR is probably not good without a specific read given we have little to no outs.

scare cards for our range: non spade A K Q J + anything which actually hits our hand is what we consider betting.

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Depends on the frequencies, which is the inherent weakness with pokerstove. Someone should make an app that lets me say that "Villain pushes AK 100% of the time here but pushes JJ+ only 50% of the time".

You can do this in PokerStove. In the lower right corner of the hand selection chart, there are a bunch of suit combos. Disable half for the hand that he only plays 50% of the time and voila! You see AK 100% and JJ+ 50%.

Yeah, it's possible but not very intuitive. What makes it complicated for me is when I want to assign a 5% stone cold bluff to his range. How would you do that, just add in one combo of 32o?

On topic I like to triple barrel the standard TAG villain alot when the turn brings a flush.

The guide is great - wonderful post Sauce....

One question - it doesn't really deal with, or reflect upon the fact that there are a lot of players buying in short. 3-betting short stacks obviously has a lot less impact in terms of fold equity.

Care to comment?

Originally Posted by cheapflop

The guide is great - wonderful post Sauce....

One question - it doesn't really deal with, or reflect upon the fact that there are a lot of players buying in short. 3-betting short stacks obviously has a lot less impact in terms of fold equity.

Care to comment?

against ppl with 15-50 BBs we have to tighten up our 3bet range a ton. however this depends a lot on our FE preflop. So if a 20 BB stack opens to 3 BB on the button, depending on his tendencies we could 3bet and call a shove with a hand as weak as KQ or 22. but we r never 3bet folding so do some stove work and figure out approx how much FE u need against a calling range of say 99+ AJ+ or something similar.

Hi Sauce, being new to 6 max - what do you feel is the optimal stratgey in the blinds based upon your theory? I love the aggressive nature in the various positions you have discussed so far - but interested in blind play also...

Originally Posted by HalvSame

What makes it complicated for me is when I want to assign a 5% stone cold bluff to his range. How would you do that, just add in one combo of 32o?

Pretty much.

Originally Posted by paulwright

Hi Sauce, being new to 6 max - what do you feel is the optimal stratgey in the blinds based upon your theory? I love the aggressive nature in the various positions you have discussed so far - but interested in blind play also...

blind play is gonna be based on the same criteria of the top 1/2 to 2/3 of his opening range from any given position should be our basic range to 3bet him. so we will be playing approx as aggressively from OOP (tho u should probably shade up to the 2/3 mark when OOP and size ur raise closer to 4x)

Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill

Originally Posted by Jager

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

So, for example, do you mean if you cbet the flop which has 2 spades and villain calls and the turn brings the 3rd spade you bet again here?

YES!!!!!!!!

...because if villain had a draw on the flop most players even at 100NL will raise your c-bet. Obviously this would be opponent dependent (i.e. a loose-passive floating on a 2spade flop is more likely to have a draw than a TAG). Typically though villain would be holding a middle pair type hand and is hoping to win the pot if weakness is shown on the turn.

I think scare card betting is VERY dependent on the opponent and these statements are far too general. If he's weak/passive its great, but against an aggro he's just as likely to play the same game and re-raise you. I don't like this scare card situation to be a blanket situation because I think bluffing is one of the most villain-dependant parts of the game.

Also, let's remember that the third spade's value matters greatly. First, what was on the flop? If there were 2 broadway cards and your cbet was called and the 3rd spade hits, you have no idea where you are and it's probably bad to bluff if you've totally whiffed. If it's been all mid or low cards or better yet one broadway card and 2 low cards, villain has a higher chance of folding to a blankish-turn spade. We have to think of the 3rd spade in context to the board, it is not so cut and dry. Did the 3rd spade also add a potential straight (and does villain like Sc's)? Is the 3rd spade one that often likely helped villain in a non flush way, e.g. making a 2pair or giving him top or middle pair?

If the third spade is somewhat of a "blank" in regards to his range, I bet the scare card a much higher amount, and against a wider range of opponents. Basically, it depends on your read of villain's range. With another spade that's a broadway card on a one-broadway card flop, there are too many hands villain calls with for the bluff to have a high success rate (any Axs, straight possibilities, flush, pair/2p). A broadway non-spade narrows his range more and is an easier bluff, but again we have to worry if it helped him enough for him to call.

I also highly disagree that most players at 100NL/200NL will re-raise their flush draw. Only the better players do this, I wouldn't say a majority.

also- a lot of ppl have taken this 3betting thing too liberally at 100nl and below. there are a TON of 12/10 or 15/12 type players at these limits. these are the type of guys where 3betting a hand in the top 1/2 of their range means like 88+ AQ+ ATs+ when they open in the CO or btn and TT+ AK+ often from UTG or UTG+1. this isnt rly 3betting "light" because these players just arent playing enough hands.

Originally Posted by mixchange

Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill

Originally Posted by Jager

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

So, for example, do you mean if you cbet the flop which has 2 spades and villain calls and the turn brings the 3rd spade you bet again here?

YES!!!!!!!!

...because if villain had a draw on the flop most players even at 100NL will raise your c-bet. Obviously this would be opponent dependent (i.e. a loose-passive floating on a 2spade flop is more likely to have a draw than a TAG). Typically though villain would be holding a middle pair type hand and is hoping to win the pot if weakness is shown on the turn.

I think scare card betting is VERY dependent on the opponent and these statements are far too general. If he's weak/passive its great, but against an aggro he's just as likely to play the same game and re-raise you. I don't like this scare card situation to be a blanket situation because I think bluffing is one of the most villain-dependant parts of the game.

Also, let's remember that the third spade's value matters greatly. First, what was on the flop? If there were 2 broadway cards and your cbet was called and the 3rd spade hits, you have no idea where you are and it's probably bad to bluff if you've totally whiffed. If it's been all mid or low cards or better yet one broadway card and 2 low cards, villain has a higher chance of folding to a blankish-turn spade. We have to think of the 3rd spade in context to the board, it is not so cut and dry. Did the 3rd spade also add a potential straight (and does villain like Sc's)? Is the 3rd spade one that often likely helped villain in a non flush way, e.g. making a 2pair or giving him top or middle pair?

If the third spade is somewhat of a "blank" in regards to his range, I bet the scare card a much higher amount, and against a wider range of opponents. Basically, it depends on your read of villain's range. With another spade that's a broadway card on a one-broadway card flop, there are too many hands villain calls with for the bluff to have a high success rate (any Axs, straight possibilities, flush, pair/2p). A broadway non-spade narrows his range more and is an easier bluff, but again we have to worry if it helped him enough for him to call.

I also highly disagree that most players at 100NL/200NL will re-raise their flush draw. Only the better players do this, I wouldn't say a majority.

Nice post mixchange. I hadn't thought to give flop texture really any thought when double barrelling a 3rd suit turn. But i can see where villain may have/pick up a hand that is good enough that even though a flush is in our range he would still be correct to continue with his hand. Also true that different opponents play flush draws differently, and flop textures can influence how they play their draws.

Originally Posted by sauce123

also- a lot of ppl have taken this 3betting thing too liberally at 100nl and below. there are a TON of 12/10 or 15/12 type players at these limits. these are the type of guys where 3betting a hand in the top 1/2 of their range means like 88+ AQ+ ATs+ when they open in the CO or btn and TT+ AK+ often from UTG or UTG+1. this isnt rly 3betting "light" because these players just arent playing enough hands.

QFimportantness

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by sauce123

also- a lot of ppl have taken this 3betting thing too liberally at 100nl and below. there are a TON of 12/10 or 15/12 type players at these limits. these are the type of guys where 3betting a hand in the top 1/2 of their range means like 88+ AQ+ ATs+ when they open in the CO or btn and TT+ AK+ often from UTG or UTG+1. this isnt rly 3betting "light" because these players just arent playing enough hands.

QFimportantness

Seconded

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by sauce123

also- a lot of ppl have taken this 3betting thing too liberally at 100nl and below. there are a TON of 12/10 or 15/12 type players at these limits. these are the type of guys where 3betting a hand in the top 1/2 of their range means like 88+ AQ+ ATs+ when they open in the CO or btn and TT+ AK+ often from UTG or UTG+1. this isnt rly 3betting "light" because these players just arent playing enough hands.

QFimportantness

Seconded

Thirded.

I think its more situational and villain dependent than some people make it out to be. You can't just take sauces 3betting advice and apply it to any random player/situation and expect amazing results. You have to adjust based on the situation.

I haven't been able to fully utilize Sauces light 3betting at 200nl either. There just aren't enough players opening a wide range until they get to the CO. I am seeing a lot of 15/10 players lately, some of whom are only stealing at ~15%. There is also alot of extreme donk types lately, ie 45/5/0.5 and 50/30/5. You really can't 3bet a 50/30 light, cause you just have zero FE, and you really can't 3bet a 45/5 light cause their range is so tight.

Yeah, i agree. It really works best against regs and decent players who run avg and not the extremes. If your sitting at a table full of nits just leave is my advice and find a new tbl. No shame in not wanting to play the nitties lol.

Originally Posted by Jager

I haven't been able to fully utilize Sauces light 3betting at 200nl either. There just aren't enough players opening a wide range until they get to the CO. I am seeing a lot of 15/10 players lately, some of whom are only stealing at ~15%. There is also alot of extreme donk types lately, ie 45/5/0.5 and 50/30/5. You really can't 3bet a 50/30 light, cause you just have zero FE, and you really can't 3bet a 45/5 light cause their range is so tight.

Against the 50/30 you 3-bet for value where you 3-bet a 22/18 for fold equity. Against the 45/5, you can call for implied more often.

Originally Posted by sauce123

Originally Posted by cheapflop

The guide is great - wonderful post Sauce....

One question - it doesn't really deal with, or reflect upon the fact that there are a lot of players buying in short. 3-betting short stacks obviously has a lot less impact in terms of fold equity.

Care to comment?

against ppl with 15-50 BBs we have to tighten up our 3bet range a ton. however this depends a lot on our FE preflop. So if a 20 BB stack opens to 3 BB on the button, depending on his tendencies we could 3bet and call a shove with a hand as weak as KQ or 22. but we r never 3bet folding so do some stove work and figure out approx how much FE u need against a calling range of say 99+ AJ+ or something similar.

i know this answer is based on the shorty actually being somewhat decent, but what about the complete donks that play the 50nl-100nl w/ like 20-25 bbs?

an example i run into a couple times a night is: 45/20 shorty w/ 25bb's raises in MP to 4xbb, i have AJs(or 99/KQs/etc) and make a big 3-bet to put him AI. Is this optimal? i love sitting at a table w/ short stacks and gambooling it up i guess.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by sauce123

also- a lot of ppl have taken this 3betting thing too liberally at 100nl and below. there are a TON of 12/10 or 15/12 type players at these limits. these are the type of guys where 3betting a hand in the top 1/2 of their range means like 88+ AQ+ ATs+ when they open in the CO or btn and TT+ AK+ often from UTG or UTG+1. this isnt rly 3betting "light" because these players just arent playing enough hands.

QFimportantness

Seconded

this is very important, although even the decent 15/12 nits at 50nl right now fold way to much against CO vs. BU or BU vs SB/BB 3-bets right now.

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Originally Posted by Jager

I haven't been able to fully utilize Sauces light 3betting at 200nl either. There just aren't enough players opening a wide range until they get to the CO. I am seeing a lot of 15/10 players lately, some of whom are only stealing at ~15%. There is also alot of extreme donk types lately, ie 45/5/0.5 and 50/30/5. You really can't 3bet a 50/30 light, cause you just have zero FE, and you really can't 3bet a 45/5 light cause their range is so tight.

Against the 50/30 you 3-bet for value where you 3-bet a 22/18 for fold equity. Against the 45/5, you can call for implied more often.

QFT. I think you just answered my post 2 above this.

Great thread.

I appreciate the motives behind "3-betting like a monkey" against HUD reliant multi-tablers but could this strategy work for some of the smaller sites with fewer tables?

E.g. at Europoker where i'm whoring at the minute there may only be around 8 50NL 6max tables and even the regs will only sit at 4 or 5.

I guess what i'm asking is should this strategy be reserved for the sites with vast player pools or could it be adapted for elsewhere?

I think alot of the nitty regs wont adjust even if they know what you are doing. Theyll fold and "wait for a better spot". If thats the case then the a small player pool probably doesnt matter much. It may even be an advantage if you can adjust to their calling tendancies without them adjusting their ranges to you.

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Originally Posted by Jager

I haven't been able to fully utilize Sauces light 3betting at 200nl either. There just aren't enough players opening a wide range until they get to the CO. I am seeing a lot of 15/10 players lately, some of whom are only stealing at ~15%. There is also alot of extreme donk types lately, ie 45/5/0.5 and 50/30/5. You really can't 3bet a 50/30 light, cause you just have zero FE, and you really can't 3bet a 45/5 light cause their range is so tight.

Against the 50/30 you 3-bet for value where you 3-bet a 22/18 for fold equity. Against the 45/5, you can call for implied more often.

DING DING

gingerwizard- a lot of the regs at 5/10-25/50 use a tight strategy relatively similar to this: Em2, WhinniePie, billivey, rekrul, sleepy80, just to name a few off the top of my head

Great post. Simple yet comprehensive and probably the best guide to shorthanded NL I've ever read. Like you said, it's hard to spew using this strategy and if a beginning player followed the guide to a T and was reasonably intelligent, I have no doubt he'd be a winning player in no time. Nice job, I wish I had read this two years ago.

One question:

Originally Posted by sauce123

In a Reraised pot:

1. Continuation bet for 2/3 pot any flop containing one or more A K Q, any flop which has given you top pair or an 8+ out draw or better.

So does this mean you're generally not cbetting a J-high or lower flop if you don't have TP or a draw? I always have trouble in these spots deciding whether to bet or check in these spots. What conditions should be present for you to bet vs. check in these situations? I'm guessing that the lighter your opp calls reraises the more likely you should be to bet, since if lots of small pairs/unpaired high cards/random suited connectors are in their range, the more they will have missed the flop and fold to your bet. On the other hand though, people who call 3bets light tend to be calling stations and will call the flop lighter, so that makes cbetting against them more problematic. Also, if I have a pair that's less than top pair, I'm more likely to bet to protect my hand and prevent being bluffed out, whereas if I just have overs I'll often just take/try to get a free card.

Originally Posted by twosevoff

Great post. Simple yet comprehensive and probably the best guide to shorthanded NL I've ever read. Like you said, it's hard to spew using this strategy and if a beginning player followed the guide to a T and was reasonably intelligent, I have no doubt he'd be a winning player in no time. Nice job, I wish I had read this two years ago.

One question:

Originally Posted by sauce123

In a Reraised pot:

1. Continuation bet for 2/3 pot any flop containing one or more A K Q, any flop which has given you top pair or an 8+ out draw or better.

So does this mean you're generally not cbetting a J-high or lower flop if you don't have TP or a draw? I always have trouble in these spots deciding whether to bet or check in these spots. What conditions should be present for you to bet vs. check in these situations? I'm guessing that the lighter your opp calls reraises the more likely you should be to bet, since if lots of small pairs/unpaired high cards/random suited connectors are in their range, the more they will have missed the flop and fold to your bet. On the other hand though, people who call 3bets light tend to be calling stations and will call the flop lighter, so that makes cbetting against them more problematic. Also, if I have a pair that's less than top pair, I'm more likely to bet to protect my hand and prevent being bluffed out, whereas if I just have overs I'll often just take/try to get a free card.

Let's say you 3bet K-Qo or 8-6s PF and got called by a reasonably aggressive opponent who has been calling your 3bets light.

The flop comes 10c-7d-4h.

Instead of continuation betting on this board, you may want to check to villain. He may either be scared to bet since you usually continuation bet and may think you are trapping and you will get a free look at the turn. But when villain decides to bet at the pot, you can check/raise! With both of the above hands you usually have 25% equity if called, and on such a dry board a lot of F.E.

Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill

Let's say you 3bet K-Qo or 8-6s PF and got called by a reasonably aggressive opponent who has been calling your 3bets light.

The flop comes 10c-7d-4h.

Instead of continuation betting on this board, you may want to check to villain. He may either be scared to bet since you usually continuation bet and may think you are trapping and you will get a free look at the turn. But when villain decides to bet at the pot, you can check/raise! With both of the above hands you usually have 25% equity if called, and on such a dry board a lot of F.E.

Just as a matter of point...you have an OESD here, so betting is better than on board you miss completely.

Also, I don't see how you're 3-betting 86s OOP according to this strategy...

Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill

Originally Posted by twosevoff

Great post. Simple yet comprehensive and probably the best guide to shorthanded NL I've ever read. Like you said, it's hard to spew using this strategy and if a beginning player followed the guide to a T and was reasonably intelligent, I have no doubt he'd be a winning player in no time. Nice job, I wish I had read this two years ago.

One question:

Originally Posted by sauce123

In a Reraised pot:

1. Continuation bet for 2/3 pot any flop containing one or more A K Q, any flop which has given you top pair or an 8+ out draw or better.

So does this mean you're generally not cbetting a J-high or lower flop if you don't have TP or a draw? I always have trouble in these spots deciding whether to bet or check in these spots. What conditions should be present for you to bet vs. check in these situations? I'm guessing that the lighter your opp calls reraises the more likely you should be to bet, since if lots of small pairs/unpaired high cards/random suited connectors are in their range, the more they will have missed the flop and fold to your bet. On the other hand though, people who call 3bets light tend to be calling stations and will call the flop lighter, so that makes cbetting against them more problematic. Also, if I have a pair that's less than top pair, I'm more likely to bet to protect my hand and prevent being bluffed out, whereas if I just have overs I'll often just take/try to get a free card.

Let's say you 3bet K-Qo or 8-6s PF and got called by a reasonably aggressive opponent who has been calling your 3bets light.

The flop comes 10c-7d-4h.

Instead of continuation betting on this board, you may want to check to villain. He may either be scared to bet since you usually continuation bet and may think you are trapping and you will get a free look at the turn. But when villain decides to bet at the pot, you can check/raise! With both of the above hands you usually have 25% equity if called, and on such a dry board a lot of F.E.

couple points here

this strat never has u 3betting 86s- EVER- tho it leaves and room for and encourages you to do this once ur timing/image is right.

in the above example postflop wise- the std line for KQ on this board would be to check/fold, or to bet/fold if u decided to make "a play" as this is a rainbow flop (we would check/fold this flop 90% if it came sooted).

with 86s on this board we would bet the flop and turn enough to get all in regardless of what turn card falls.

also ur assumption that KQo=86s on this board with 25% equity is seriously flawed.

i also dont think i ever mentioned checkraising once as a line postflop when we have the initiative in a 3bet pot.

one last thing- continuation betting on a Tc 7d 4h flop with KQo is going to be more +EV than C-betting AK on this same board. AK actually will be the best hand almost half the time on this flop and we have a large amount of SD value against KQ AQ AJ AT QJ SCs which make up a significant portion of his calling range.

With KQ our cbet makes a lot of better unpaired hands fold and we lose less when raised (equity wise)

Originally Posted by sauce123

one last thing- continuation betting on a Tc 7d 4h flop with KQo is going to be more +EV than C-betting AK on this same board. AK actually will be the best hand almost half the time on this flop and we have a large amount of SD value against KQ AQ AJ AT QJ SCs which make up a significant portion of his calling range.

With KQ our cbet makes a lot of better unpaired hands fold and we lose less when raised (equity wise)

This is a very interesting concept. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to use it to impact play. Assuming we've 3-bet from the blinds with AK and we get a board like that, are you inclined to check?

Well i worked through it for myself...


These ranges are based on a known history of villain calling 3bets light, and after he has bet the flop once checked to:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

87,120 games 0.005 secs 17,424,000 games/sec

Board: Tc 7d 4h
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 28.347% 28.35% 00.00% 24696 0.00 { KhQd }
Hand 1: 71.653% 71.65% 00.00% 62424 0.00 { TT+, 77, 44, ATs, KTs, T9s, 87s, 32s, ATo, KTo, T9o, 87o, 32o }


In this example i thought c/ring is better than bet/folding because i figured we would have plenty of F.E. and are only WB Q-Q+/10-10/7-7. But those hands make up 1/4 of his range, and A-10/K-10 probably call the c/r a high % of the time. In fact if TPGK/TPTK never fold along with the big pairs/sets, 50% of his range is never folding so then c/r definitely sucks.


Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

93,060 games 0.005 secs 18,612,000 games/sec

Board: Tc 7d 4h
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 42.512% 42.22% 00.29% 39291 271.00 { 8d6d }
Hand 1: 57.488% 57.20% 00.29% 53227 271.00 { TT+, 77, 44, ATs, KTs, T9s, 87s, 32s, ATo, KTo, T9o, 87o, 32o }


---


I thought we had a lot more F.E. before i went through and gave villain a range. Also its likely we will be able to get it AI on the flop with our double gutshot when our equity is best since most of villain's range is raising the flop.



These are the ranges that i came up with against an opponent who has no history of calling 3bets light:





Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

53,460 games 0.005 secs 10,692,000 games/sec

Board: Tc 7d 4h
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 44.120% 44.09% 00.03% 23569 17.50 { 8h6h }
Hand 1: 55.880% 55.85% 00.03% 29856 17.50 { TT+, 77, AQs+, 32s, AKo }




Bet/3bet seems to be the best line with this hand.


Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

42,570 games 0.005 secs 8,514,000 games/sec

Board: Tc 7d 4h
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 17.411% 17.41% 00.00% 7412 0.00 { KhQd }
Hand 1: 82.589% 82.59% 00.00% 35158 0.00 { TT+, 77, AQs+, 32s, AKo }


---


Sauce i see now that comparing a double gutshot SD and K-Qo's equity on that flop was a mistake. With K-Qo only having 17% equity, we would need a ton of F.E. to make a c/r +EV and against this range we really don't have any. With 8-6s getting it AI on the flop is what we want equity-wise and villain's range is going to help us do that so we might as well let him.


Another thing i took away from this: future posts in this thread need to be asked in the form of a question.