Constructing a 4bet range

[Cobra_1878]

I am running into a lot more 3bets at 10NL than I am used to, it's like it's compulsory to 3bet a button open if you're in the blinds, and it's costing me a lot atm.

How do I construct a 4betting range? Can someone point me in the right direction/give me a few pointers?

Thanking You

[MadMojoMonkey]

1) Guess Villain's range to 3-bet
2) Guess Villain's range to continue to your 4-bet
3) Guess Villain's range to 5-bet
4) From these ranges, determine if there is enough fold equity to bluff PRE
5) Consider how Villain plays post-flop
6) Assemble your own ranges such that you maximize equity, given your assumptions.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If they're 3-betting ATC from the blinds and they're not narrowing their range when you 4-bet, then start shipping any Ax or Kx hand as a 6-bet.

Anyone? That sounds good if it's a heads up pot, at least.

[jackvance]

A standard one you can build off of: 4bet AA (6 combo's) and A2s-A4s (12 combo's). You can make it wider along those proportions. There are more of such standardized ranges for all of 3bet/4bet/5bet but I'd have to go look them up.

[Cobra_1878]

A standard one you can build off of: 4bet AA (6 combo's) and A2s-A4s (12 combo's). You can make it wider along those proportions. There are more of such standardized ranges for all of 3bet/4bet/5bet but I'd have to go look them up.

Thanks for the start, if you just link me to it or whatever I can look it up myself, just wasn't sure where to look.

[daven]

I am running into a lot more 3bets at 10NL than I am used to, it's like it's compulsory to 3bet a button open if you're in the blinds, and it's costing me a lot atm.

steal 2x then the 3-bets are rarely profitable
you'll find that villains will start 3betting small (like to 6bb) with their bluffs and to 10bb with their legit hands for a while at least.

How do I construct a 4betting range? Can someone point me in the right direction/give me a few pointers?

Thanking You

start by thinking of sub-ranges, there are the 4b/get it in hands and the 4b-snap fold hands. with the 4b-snap fold hands there is value in blockers, plus post-flop playability if they flat your 4b oop.

[surviva316]

Assuming 100bbs deep, the easiest thing to do is to widen your 4b value range and add bluffs. That's just like plain old solid unexploitable poker. Like 4b/call 99+/AQ (or AJs+ or AJo+, depending on how wide they're 3b'ing) and 4b/f any Axo you can't otherwise play profitably. Also, against players who resteal a lot, you should be keeping your raise/folding range as slim as you can. Opening Q7o on the button is a completely different game against a 25/20/15 with a 70% fold to steal as it is from a 25/20/5 with a 70% fold to steal.

Playing exploitively involves merging your range completely (like 77+/good aces/KQs and no bluffs) or not merging it at all (QQ+/AK and a lot of bluffs) and everything in between, based on game dynamics, reads on players, etc. I'd probably just play on small variations on unexploitably until you get a good sample and read on how players react to 4b's (1k hands+) unless there is some situation that makes it so that you can have an incredible feel for dynamics against a particular player (eg: you're playing live or you're at a heads-up table or you're like a Rain Man-style super OCD math guy).

The maths change very quickly as you get deeper (4b/calling becomes a lot pricier as little as like 115bb's deep, but the good news is that as you get like 150+bb's deep, then you can start to widen your 3b calling range which should solve a lot of that problem, and eventually you get deep enough that 4b/5b wars turn into 5b/6b wars). Strategy obviously also changes quite a bit when you're too shallow to be able to 4b without committing yourself to calling off your whole stack. In these spots, you should just be 4b shoving a totally merged range (against 40-50bb short stackers who 3b a lot, you can 4b shove as wide as like 22+/A9+/KJ+/QJs).

NOTE: All ranges in this post are merely examples. I didn't even mention 3b and resteal percentages and this is central to deciding how much we need to 4b in the first place, so if someone's only restealing like 8%, then you should be shaving a considerable number of combos from that 99+/AQ+/AJs + all aces you can't call with range, as opposed to if you're facing someone who resteals like 15%. Basically the more villain 3b's and the more exploitable their tendencies when facing 4b'ing is, the more you should 4b. All of my other factors get into what kind of hands you should 4b.

[jackvance]

Thanks for the start, if you just link me to it or whatever I can look it up myself, just wasn't sure where to look.

This isn't standardized or common knowledge btw, it's from some recent books (I dunno which) which are trying to construct mathematically correct ranges. Some people on 2+2 just leaked the info in some threads i dunno where I read it. But I suck at poker and I'm gonna sit in the corner now.

[surviva316]

A standard one you can build off of: 4bet AA (6 combo's) and A2s-A4s (12 combo's).

I know that this is irrelevant to the point you're making, but A2s-A4s is probably more often gonna be a call than a hand you need to turn into a bluff. Also, the concept of postflop playability changes a lot in 4b situations 100bb's deep because 1) villain isn't going to flat 4b's OOP near as much, and 2) the SPR is going to be so small that A9o is probably more playable than A6s.

Both of these points vary a lot with sizing, of course. If it goes 2bb->7bb->17bb, then 1) villain (especially bad lower stake regs) are going to be tempted to flat a lot more thinking there's enough left behind to zomg set mine or zomg play their 76s and what have you, and 2) the SPR's gonna be 2:1 could still I guess be enough money to fart around with backdoor draws and such (it would leave behind enough to do something like 14bb on flop->21bb on turn->shove), but yeah, still equity's gonna matter a lot more than it usually does preflop and the usual concept of "playability" is gonna be off.

[Savy]

http://en.donkr.com/Articles/optimal...x---part-1-329

[MadMojoMonkey]

epic link, savy

[jackvance]

Did you find that in a thread about 3betting in poker theory on 2+2?

[Savy]

Did you find that in a thread about 3betting in poker theory on 2+2?

I've seen it posted a few times now, originally I think it was by someone on ftr, can't remember who and I've seen it posted on 2+2 a couple of times.

Is hardly new or anything and obviously nothing to do with me.

[jackvance]

Just asking because I read it there a few weeks ago. Really good article.

[surviva316]

Is hardly new or anything and obviously nothing to do with me.

Quit joshin, we all know you wrote it.

[Savy]

Quit joshin, we all know you wrote it.

Coaching from $200/hour

[surviva316]

Not all the way through yet, but these two paragraphs are really really good:

When we have learned these strategies, we have defensive (e.g. unexploitable) strategies we can use both as the raiser out of position, and as the 3-bettor in position. Using these optimal strategies guarantees that better players can't exploit us. They will also win against players who play poorly, although they will not win the maximum (if we want to exploit opponent leaks maximally, we have to deviate from optimal play ourselves, and use strategies that target specific leaks in our opponent's non-optimal strategies).

Knowing optimal strategies also makes it easier to spot our opponents' mistakes (where we can define "mistake" as a deviation from optimal play). If we know what an opponent should have done if he had played optimally, we can conclude that he has a weakness in his game if he chooses to do something different. And we might be able to exploit these weaknesses and turn them into leaks for him.

It's elementary game theory, but it's tough to explain these concepts in two succinct paragraphs like that. It express like 4 crucial points all in one:

- Perfect (ie: unexploitable) strategy will never lose you money.

- Perfect strategy will win you money against any player who doesn't play perfect back (ie: everyone in the player pool).

- Understanding perfect strategy gives you a benchmark to understand player weaknesses (ie: any deviation from perfect play is a "weakness," so long as we define that as exploitable [though it might still be correct]).

- Understanding perfect strategy gives you a benchmark to understand what deviations you yourself should make to exploit those weaknesses (though it doesn't give you the answer to whether you should bluff more/less or bet for value more/less or play more/less aggressively, etc, once you determine that answer, it gives you the answer to "more or less than what?").