3-betting profitably when behind villain's range

[Outlaw]

This is geared towards playing against typical multi-tabling nits/tight passives we run into constantly at FR and 6MAX. It has use in mtt/sng too, assuming stacks are deep.

Nits will typically fold to 3bets with all but the very top of their range (AA-KK-QQ-AK.) We should consider 3-betting light more often than not in order to extract maximum value from hands that do not hold up well against the villain's range postflop. This works best against level 2 thinkers that will fold much much better hands than us preflop and postflop due to their nittiness and unwillingness to get involved with less than the near nuts.

6-max Example: We are sitting on the button with 45suited and a 8/6 nit comes in with a cutoff raise for 4xBB. We put his range on the top 9% of hands. QJs+, 88+.

Since we know he 4bets or shoves back over with AA-KK, we don't really care because we don't really have good implied odds to play postflop with suited connectors anyways here in a heads up pot. The majority of his other range (even QQ) he likely will just cold call as a nit.

Now what hands will he immediately think we have because we 3-bet? As a level 2 player you tend to think all other players do what you do. So he puts us on AA-KK-QQ-AK.. but he really really fears AA-KK here.

So what hands is he folding preflop? ATs, AQ, KQ, KJ, K10s, QJs, 88, 99, 1010, maybe JJ, AK. So all he holds onto is AA-KK-QQ-AK. 2 of those hands we don't continue with anyways because he 4bet us preflop and we folded.. so postflop we know he has one of two hands.

Let's say the flop comes J-9-5rainbow. We bet half pot (which looks like a huge bet to a nit now because of the action preflop)

He folds AK because he missed. So all he really continues with is one hand.. and even with QQ he is scared as hell about because we MUST have AA-KK right? And if the flop comes with an ace or king in it, we cbet and he folds QQ.

So a half pot bet breaks even by winning 1 out of 3. This play folds him 50% of the time or better, making it a winning play.

AND, he folds the better hand 70%+ of the time preflop... which is really where the profit adds up. Anyone want to do the math based on these ranges and the preflop/postflop action? I suck at math.

Additionally, sometimes we will hit our hand hard and stack him postflop.. whereas our hand is really easy to get off of should we meet resistance.

This may be an over-simplified example, but this is how I have been playing against overly tight players lately in the micros and it seems to be working like a charm.

My amount won without showdown % has stopped plummeting and has actually been break even or better for a couple of sessions. Best of all, I think the table fears me more and wants to get involved with me even less... and maniacs play even dumber against me now when they see me show down a weird straight after 3-betting preflop.

But how to play LAGGs is another discussion.

Of course, we worry that the table will adjust.. but since tables are like revolving doors and multi-tabling robots aren't really paying attention anyways, we only have to watch out for regs. And hey, next time we will have AA and we get paid.. which is the main reason for playing this way in the first place.

The main idea here is that you play each of your ranges to maximum profitability. (ABCD)

Use this strategy from anywhere on the table where you feel your range is too far behind the villains to cold call profitable but you have a sexy hand you can't lay down.

[mieczkowusc]

Nice post. There are some people getting smarter in the BC, which is scary.

Correct me if I am wrong, but 3 betting light also helps to exploit people playing pocket pairs for set odds against a 3 bet, because the majority of the time, you won't have a hand you are willing stack off with, or if you do, its either a higher set, straight or flush.

Even though villain believes that he is getting "implied odds", thinking you are stacking off with AA on a Q72 rainbow to 777, you really are only getting more value out of his pocket pair that he will be folding the majority of the time to a flop cbet. And the time that he does hit his set, he may win a bet from you on the flop, but after that, if you have air, you are just c/f the turn.

In addition, hands like Axs can be good hands to 3 bet with in position because it narrows down the range of hands the villain can continue with, and can flop strong twelve out draws against most hands besides AA and flopped sets.

I think I just strategy-towned myself with that sentence, because I just realized what someone else was trying to say in another thread, but I am going to hope that no one noticed that.

[Outlaw]

Correct me if I am wrong, but 3 betting light also helps to exploit people playing pocket pairs for set odds against a 3 bet, because the majority of the time, you won't have a hand you are willing stack off with, or if you do, its either a higher set, straight or flush.

Even though villain believes that he is getting "implied odds", thinking you are stacking off with AA on a Q72 rainbow to 777, you really are only getting more value out of his pocket pair that he will be folding the majority of the time to a flop cbet. And the time that he does hit his set, he may win a bet from you on the flop, but after that, if you have air, you are just c/f the turn.

Proper 3-bet sizing destroys their implied odds anyways.. so if they do call with a pp and hit a set against you, not only have they made a -ev play, they aren't ever getting paid.. which is your point.

I agree, suited Aces are great hands to 3-bet light with.. because you float JJ/QQ/KK which likely shut down to your bet on the turn, or get off an ace high flop easily. Or you hit a nicely disguised 2 pair or low three of a kind hand.

[mieczkowusc]

Proper 3-bet sizing destroys their implied odds anyways.. so if they do call with a pp and hit a set against you, not only have they made a -ev play, they aren't ever getting paid.. which is your point.

I agree, suited Aces are great hands to 3-bet light with.. because you float JJ/QQ/KK which likely shut down to your bet on the turn, or get off an ace high flop easily. Or you hit a nicely disguised 2 pair or low three of a kind hand.

You can also use your raise size to exploit all the nits that will only continue with the "proper" implied odds by 3 betting a little smaller to encourage a call, knowing that they are going to c/f unless they hit their set.

[Outlaw]

I prefer to polarize their range.. by 3betting less you let their whole range in and that kills the whole point of the 3-bet with my C range.

[kmind]

Couple of thoughts:
1. How is this 3-betting for value?
2. Are you sure SC are the best against a really tight range?
3. Why are you just using the nit for an example? What makes him a good candidate? (You basically answered it in the OP but you should see why 3-betting other players are good too if you use the same logic)
4. I think you should specify that your perceived 3-bet range will be yadda yadda yadda but once they adjust then you should adjust.

you shouldn't really cbet unless they'll fold enough or cbet tiny
if the villain's range is QQ+, AK they're continuing with half of their range
I doubt even a nit folds QQ on a jack high board to one bet

[Muzzard]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...he-t77410.html

[Outlaw]

Couple of thoughts:
1. How is this 3-betting for value?
2. Are you sure SC are the best against a really tight range?
3. Why are you just using the nit for an example? What makes him a good candidate? (You basically answered it in the OP but you should see why 3-betting other players are good too if you use the same logic)
4. I think you should specify that your perceived 3-bet range will be yadda yadda yadda but once they adjust then you should adjust.

1. You exploit their predictability by knowing no matter what they do, you are going to profit.
2. As a 3bet yes, because these types of players couldn't imagine you 3betting with such hands.
3. The whole point was to show how to exploit nitty multi-tablers who will probably never adjust.. you have to play different against regs/laggs, but thats another subject.
4. That's the point, if they adjust they aren't who we are targetting.. and if they adjust you adjust and label them differently.. and play accordingly.

In my session just a bit ago, this guy was running 7/5 but he raised the button every single time around the table.. I 3bet him 3 straight times from the BB, collected his 12 BBs, then got all in against him with KK when he had AQ and took 100 more BBs off him.

Typically they eventually do play back at you, but then your image is wrecked and you get paid off.

[Outlaw]

you shouldn't really cbet unless they'll fold enough or cbet tiny
if the villain's range is QQ+, AK they're continuing with half of their range
I doubt even a nit folds QQ on a jack high board to one bet

You have to cbet 90% of the time because you represented a huge hand preflop.. if you back down on the flop what was the whole point of it. I have played a ton of 3bet pots lately and have had my cbet work everytime but twice... the other 20+ times I took it down immediately.

But that scenario plays itself really.. most of the time the 3bet works and you move on to the next hand.

[Outlaw]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/3-betting-and-fold-equity-in-fr-nlhe-t77410.html

Thanks for that.. pretty close to what I'm talking about.

If I see someone on my table running very tight (especially at 6max) I find out how many tables they are running.. if its 4+ I treat them as a multi-nit or nutcamper and 3bet them until the cows come home until they prove otherwise.

Note: If they are running 3/2 then this is also suicide lol

[kmind]

What I am trying to say is:
1. Betting for value means betting with a better hand against his calling range. This is not 3-betting for value, it's 3-betting light.
2. In some cases yeah SC are fine, but you have to think of all options and sometimes flatting SC with great implied odds (in the OP you say that these suck at implied odds?) can be better.
3. I'm saying it all depends on how often villain folds and what part of their range continues and how our hand plays vs. that range.
4. Nice

you shouldn't really cbet unless they'll fold enough or cbet tiny
if the villain's range is QQ+, AK they're continuing with half of their range
I doubt even a nit folds QQ on a jack high board to one bet

You have to cbet 90% of the time because you represented a huge hand preflop.. if you back down on the flop what was the whole point of it. I have played a ton of 3bet pots lately and have had my cbet work everytime but twice... the other 20+ times I took it down immediately.

But that scenario plays itself really.. most of the time the 3bet works and you move on to the next hand.

It depends on their range, if their range of continuing to a 3b is really tight you might elect to 3b and give up on the flop.

[Robb]

Nice posts, kmind. I feel like 3bettors who know what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish have a big advantage at 10nl and a decent advantage at 25nl. I'm just curious what level are your playing where the nits almost always 4bet/shove w/ AA and KK? If they're as weak-tight as you're describing them, perhaps they'll flat a 3bet? I started seeing the flat 3bet w/ KK+ a bit at 25nl and now a good deal at 50nl.

[Stacks]

I was going to reply earlier, but I read kminds posts and he said just about everything I was going to get across.

First off, when you do something for value it's with the intention of getting worse hands to call. Here this is not what you are hoping to accomplish.. You are 3betting a wider range with the hopes of him folding better hands. This is 3betting lighter and as a bluff. You are expecting villain to fold more often than he has to for your bet to work..

If villain raises to 4x and you 3bet to 12x, you are risking 12x to win the pot of what now is 17.5x so it only has to work around 68% of the time to be +ev. If they are folding more than that then it's immediately +ev on fold equity alone, and doesn't factor in any equity you have when called.

However, as kmind stated, and as renton alluded to in his ABCD theorem, sometimes the ranges aren't perfectly defined and depending on the situation you can choose a different option for a diferent reason. For instance in some situations you may want to 3bet a hand like 76s; however, alot of times a hand like 76s is perfectly fine and profitable to call with. Against some players a hand like AJs is worth a call. Against others you decide to 3bet it as a bluff because you don't expect him to call with worse, but you believe he will fold often enough for it to be profitable.

And regarding the cbetting, it really depends on how the villain plays when facing a cbet. If you can pinpoint exactly what the villain is doing with his entire range everytime then you can obviously make a correct decision. However, against any sort of thinking villain they shouldn't be making the same play everytime. And if this is the case you have to make a few assumptions and things get a bit trickier. For instance, if a player is opening a wide range, but is folding to a ton of 3bets then you want to be 3bet bluffing rather frequently. However, when villain decides to just call your 3bet, unless you have a hand alot of the time you aren't going to want to cbet. It would be rather pointless because he has just told you he has the top of his range by calling your 3bet. On the other hand if a villain is calling a shitload of 3bets then you can stand to cbet and 2 barrel any reasonable hand/draw because they should be folding often enough.

[Outlaw]

What I am trying to say is:
1. Betting for value means betting with a better hand against his calling range. This is not 3-betting for value, it's 3-betting light.
2. In some cases yeah SC are fine, but you have to think of all options and sometimes flatting SC with great implied odds (in the OP you say that these suck at implied odds?) can be better.
3. I'm saying it all depends on how often villain folds and what part of their range continues and how our hand plays vs. that range.
4. Nice

1. I agree, and its my fault for not clarifying. We are betting for value by thinking on the 3rd level. (What does my opponent think I have) Our opponents can't see our cards, and if there is no showdown they never will. He has no clue that we just make them fold QQ on an A75 board with 910suited. In his mind its, "damnit he hit his AK, I gotta fold freaking QQ again!" Or on a 58Q board he says, "AK never hits, I hate this hand" Also you are assuming he calls our 3bet. If we are 4bet or he cold calls, we have to play carefully but decisively. Remember, in his mind we 3bet him.. we have a monster. And if he gets stubborn and cold calls with the middle and bottom of his range, he is looking to hit the flop hard or fold. Cbets on the flop and/or turn will take these pots away a ton.

2. Certainly, flatting in multi-way pots and such is good to do with scs... even heads up to mix up your game. But against these automatons, do we really need to mix things up?

3. Exactly. We move left or right in the envelope as necessary even against a certain type of player. Its the malleability that makes our plays lethal.

I think we basically agree here on mostly.. I wrote this post simply to point out how to exploit some of the level two thinkers who believe they are top players by thinking on the 3rd and 4th level and always being 1-2 steps ahead of them. If we do what they think we are doing, we are playing their game and might as well stay out of their way. But if we play in a way that's impossible for them to predict, even if the method seems counter intuitive, we confuse and put ourselves in very profitable situations that leave them scratching their heads.. such as "how the hell did that guy 3bet me with 23 and stack my AK on a 22K board"

[Outlaw]

Nice posts, kmind. I feel like 3bettors who know what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish have a big advantage at 10nl and a decent advantage at 25nl. I'm just curious what level are your playing where the nits almost always 4bet/shove w/ AA and KK? If they're as weak-tight as you're describing them, perhaps they'll flat a 3bet? I started seeing the flat 3bet w/ KK+ a bit at 25nl and now a good deal at 50nl.

I do see this sometimes as well.. they are typically calling stations, never raising. This is fine as you can play pot control as they allow you to draw out on them.

[Outlaw]

I wrote this basically to explore alternatives to conventional play against certain types of players.

I would love to hear some input from some of the top players on this site regarding these ideas.

The reason I have been experimenting with this stuff is because I find playing a more aggressive preflop game against these types of players allows us to win monster pots and lose smaller ones instead of the opposite. It puts us on the offensive all of the time. I am finding out you never want to have someone else driving the action against you.

[Erpel]

I don't have anything real to contribute here. I think the initial post is solid and kminds and other comments spot on. I just thought I'd comment on the usage of the term 'for value'.

Everything we do in poker we do because we want to make money on it. We want to maximise our EV - our expected value. It would be acceptable (but awkward) to say that we make decisions 'for EV'.

In poker we also use a term 'for value' which means specifically something quite distinct and different from EV. We bet for value when we rate to be favourites and we want to build the pot bigger that we expect to take home when we get to showdown. It's for value when we expect the showdown to go our way - when we are favourites and we want to see the showdown because we think that maximises our EV.

If we make a bet where we hope to make a profit on the villain folding we do it as a bluff (or semi-bluff). We still do it for profit. We still do it to improve our EV. But 'for value' means something else so we don't do it for value. We do it as a bluff.

[Outlaw]

I don't have anything real to contribute here. I think the initial post is solid and kminds and other comments spot on. I just thought I'd comment on the usage of the term 'for value'.

Everything we do in poker we do because we want to make money on it. We want to maximise our EV - our expected value. It would be acceptable (but awkward) to say that we make decisions 'for EV'.

In poker we also use a term 'for value' which means specifically something quite distinct and different from EV. We bet for value when we rate to be favourites and we want to build the pot bigger that we expect to take home when we get to showdown. It's for value when we expect the showdown to go our way - when we are favourites and we want to see the showdown because we think that maximises our EV.

If we make a bet where we hope to make a profit on the villain folding we do it as a bluff (or semi-bluff). We still do it for profit. We still do it to improve our EV. But 'for value' means something else so we don't do it for value. We do it as a bluff.

I understand what you are saying and agree mostly in the traditional sense. However, plays that extract dead money/exploit a certain player type to me are value plays... whether its in the true definition sense or not.

I did pull this definition off of Wikipedia just to clarify things for myself: For a bet for value to be correct, a player must have a positive expectation, that is, he will win more than one bet for every bet he puts in the pot.

The idea I am trying to articulate is that we should exploit certain types of player with smoke and mirrors to increase our expectation in a predictable manor while lowering their expectation without them ever knowing it. We play as equally unpredictable as our opponents are predictable. Since our opponent thinks he is playing "correctly" he will view our plays as being what he would do in our shoes and assign an incorrect range to us and in turn lose any implied odds he might think he has. He will also unknowingly be completely in the dark postflop and subject to getting trapped if we both hit our hands.

In the initial post I was trying to illustrate how solid reading of opponents and playing the people more than your cards can lead to solid profit even if we aren't hitting a lot of strong hands.

Since I have started exploiting these types of players my red line in my graph has leveled off and is even positive for entire sessions sometimes. It also seems to have lowered my variance quiet a bit, which might seem counter-intuitive since I am "mixing it up" more. Maybe because this style of play lends itself to more respect? I hardly ever get 3bet anymore.

I am not trying to come across as an expert on this type of thing. I am merely exploring alternative ways of playing. ABC poker gets really boring. I was also hoping to spark a discussion by some of the better players here on ways to extract more money from certain player types. I only gave weak-tight players as an example, where we use counter-intuitive methods to exploit them by thinking a level or two ahead of them. I think I will start a thread asking people to discuss the different player types out there and the best ways to combat them.

[kmind]

No we aren't trying to say what you are doing/thinking is wrong we are just trying to encourage you to think more. But yeah hopefully we can get this thread even more interesting.

[Outlaw]

No we aren't trying to say what you are doing/thinking is wrong we are just trying to encourage you to think more. But yeah hopefully we can get this thread even more interesting.

Mission accomplished. Thanks