NLHE: 3betting and facing a 3bet
Thanks for sharing that! It further explains things I knew, but so much better.
The only thing that i'm having trouble with are the effective stacks in a tourny. Whats the smallest stack size can we 3bet if we are polarizing? Of course villian would have equal or greater the stack.
The only thing that i'm having trouble with are the effective stacks in a tourny. Whats the smallest stack size can we 3bet if we are polarizing? Of course villian would have equal or greater the stack.
Lets say the effective stacks are 25BB. He raises to 3BB, you 3bet to 10BB.
1) In first scenario we have 67s. If he 4bets/stacks-off with a range of JJ+, AK+, we have 30% equity against that range and after he 4bets/shoves we need to pay 15 BB more to win 50. 15/50=0.3 which means we have enough equity and we are priced in to call.
2) In second scenario we have J2s and against the same 4betting range we have 24% equity. Which means if he shoves we can safely fold.
There is no definitive answer to your question, but i would suggest merging instead of polarizing when that shallow.
Thank you very much for your post. It's very nicely organized and it articulates (quite nicely) a subject i've been giving a lot of thought lately.
I think there are scenarios where your villian will not realize you are exploiting them... where i'm realizing the opponent is never adjusting.
There are some games, RUSH is an easy example, where you can often have a lot of information on your opponent without having direct history. Because of the nature of the game, they (in general) are probably not remembering a 3Bet history from any particular person.
There are also some player types that come to mind that you can 3Bet relentlessly:
.Multi-tabling players are an example, they play so many hands it may be less likely that they realize that you have 3Bet their LP raise the last four times.
.Tight Passives & their ilk. These players just have it ingrained in their mind to fold AQo-/AJs-JJ- to a 3Bet when OOP. Even when they periodically ignore that commandment, they either hit their set or they dont and they bow out.
With a small sample it does not take many times for an opponent to adjust to make 3Betting them with ATC unprofitable but them calling that many 3Bets seems to take a lot of players out of their comfort zone. And certainly by the time they've adjusted their F3Bet from 90% to 70%, you'll no longer be 3Betting them with trash.
It's worth considering how we, ourselves, react when we raise from EP with AJo (or some not monster) and get 3Bet from MP by an opponent with a 11% 3Bet. I think many of us (guessing here) still have trouble flatting the 3bet and are most likely to fold or 4Bet. Folding sucks and 4Betting has massively bloated a pot PF and we may be OOP with an opponent who we know is willing to gamble.
Something i continue to struggle with, perhaps not even worth considering unless i have a lot of history with someone but how do you go about determining if your opponent is 3Betting you with a polarized range or a merged range?
Some of the BvB and Steal scenarios come to mind.
If they 3Bet you OOP it'll be a merged range vs IP is more likely to be a polarized range. I'm not sure how to figure out which opponents deserve the credit for even thinking about it.
I think the question is touched on in your quote here:
Do we use anything else besides specific history and position to determine a merged vs polarized range when facing a 3Bet?
Stack sizes? Shortstacks typically do not 3bet trash. In the same way we determine whether to 3Bet with merged or polarized range do we give our opponent credit for the same line of thinking?
1. Even if it's +EV to 3bet someone with ATC, should we?
Probably not. You want to take advantage of someone in such a way that he doesn't realize you are exploiting him. If you 3bet him every time he raises, he'll adjust pretty quickly and no longer make the same exploitable mistake. If you get out of line just enough, he'll never realize you're exploiting him.
Probably not. You want to take advantage of someone in such a way that he doesn't realize you are exploiting him. If you 3bet him every time he raises, he'll adjust pretty quickly and no longer make the same exploitable mistake. If you get out of line just enough, he'll never realize you're exploiting him.
There are some games, RUSH is an easy example, where you can often have a lot of information on your opponent without having direct history. Because of the nature of the game, they (in general) are probably not remembering a 3Bet history from any particular person.
There are also some player types that come to mind that you can 3Bet relentlessly:
.Multi-tabling players are an example, they play so many hands it may be less likely that they realize that you have 3Bet their LP raise the last four times.
.Tight Passives & their ilk. These players just have it ingrained in their mind to fold AQo-/AJs-JJ- to a 3Bet when OOP. Even when they periodically ignore that commandment, they either hit their set or they dont and they bow out.
With a small sample it does not take many times for an opponent to adjust to make 3Betting them with ATC unprofitable but them calling that many 3Bets seems to take a lot of players out of their comfort zone. And certainly by the time they've adjusted their F3Bet from 90% to 70%, you'll no longer be 3Betting them with trash.
It's worth considering how we, ourselves, react when we raise from EP with AJo (or some not monster) and get 3Bet from MP by an opponent with a 11% 3Bet. I think many of us (guessing here) still have trouble flatting the 3bet and are most likely to fold or 4Bet. Folding sucks and 4Betting has massively bloated a pot PF and we may be OOP with an opponent who we know is willing to gamble.
Many good players don't know why they are polarizing their 3bet range, and as such don't know how to counter it nor how to know when they should be merging their 3bet range instead. It's excruciatingly simple...if a polarized 3bet range relies on the initial raiser to never call, you should call when facing a polarized 3betting range rather than 4bet.
Some of the BvB and Steal scenarios come to mind.
If they 3Bet you OOP it'll be a merged range vs IP is more likely to be a polarized range. I'm not sure how to figure out which opponents deserve the credit for even thinking about it.
I think the question is touched on in your quote here:
The difference between 3bet dynamics caused by the relative position of the initial raiser and 3better is caused by people's willingness to call 3bets in position as opposed to the disgust caused by flatting out of position. Strangely, this causes something of a backwards dynamic, as proven above. The larger the pot, the less position matters. Though the 3better takes control of the hand and has position, this matters less the larger the pot is bloated by preflop aggression. But this isn't to say it's incorrect to 3bet in position...I say this only to illustrate the beautiful contradictions of the game.
Most strong players know this, and those who know how to both polarize and merge a 3betting range often choose to polarize in position and merge when out of position, as they expect to face flats when out of position and 4bets when in position. The way to combat this is to do the exact opposite...until they adjust, which is when you'll have to readjust...
Most strong players know this, and those who know how to both polarize and merge a 3betting range often choose to polarize in position and merge when out of position, as they expect to face flats when out of position and 4bets when in position. The way to combat this is to do the exact opposite...until they adjust, which is when you'll have to readjust...
Stack sizes? Shortstacks typically do not 3bet trash. In the same way we determine whether to 3Bet with merged or polarized range do we give our opponent credit for the same line of thinking?
First off, thanks very much for covering the questions ralf. You really hit the nail on the head.
EDIT: I rambled, and took some time to think.
That's all I really had issue with. And while I agree 100% with that statement...err...(ironically enough, in a vacuum), flatting 3bets oop against a correctly polarized range isn't an attempt to be unexploitable. Instead, it's an adjustment made to exploit an adjustment that was meant to exploit our 4-bet or fold strategy.
I can't say with any sort of confidence that it works, which is where I agree with you. It's a really tough adjustment to make, and might be more -EV than folding if you're not...say...BelugaWhale. And I definitely went on a pretty significant downswing while trying to test it out.
The difficulty really lies in the lack of information you'll almost always have on your opponent. It relies on him having a correctly polarized range first. If you make this adjustment before confirming that, you're flushing money down the toilet. And then you really need to know what he'll do with the bottom and top of his range in a 3bet pot in position. We're still playing against a polarized range, so...that's really hard.
So, tbh, I can't say whether this adjustment is +EV or not. And I do largely agree with everything you said. The only reservation that I had was with that. We are actually becoming extremely exploitable, which is worth mentioning. Further, it's a bit of a one-barrel gun, as flatting a hand like KQ once will often halt an opponent's polarized 3betting for...quite some time (worthy investment?).
And thanks again for all the great posts you made. You just generally rock.
It's true that there are people that are willing to just keep folding...and you can certainly induce a LOT of spew from people who just have no clue how to adjust. In his first appearance on Deuce Plays (in which he said to NEVER flat 3bets oop...by the way ), BelugaWhale recounted the times when no one shoved with anything but KK+. He 3bet a guy so many times he forced a shove by 99...which was just unheard of in those days. So...yeah. It's definitely a good thing to get someone to spew chips at you by 3betting ATC that you couldn't otherwise play. At that point, the dynamic shifts...if you 3bet all air to balance a 3% stackoff range and flat all hands with equity, there is obviously a point in which your opponent can 4bet 99 profitably, at which time you have to adjust by slimming down your air range significantly and just induce spew while you have the nuts. Of course, you then lose your ability to 3bet much air at all, which is a loss in its own.
And there are indeed other people that just won't ever notice...but even if the guy you're 3betting doesn't notice, your opponents also have to miss the fact that you're 3betting ATC against a particular nit. Well...there's not much to say here I guess. If someone doesn't notice that, in exploiting someone you yourself become extremely exploitable, then you should continue your exploitative strategy. Poker is a game of finesse in adjustments...because by adjusting to exploit someone you leave equilibrium and thus become exploitable yourself. But that's where large profits are created, so by all means do so.
Just...be mindful that people will adjust to you if you make it obvious. Terp has a great video on balance where he has a metaphor for this exact thought process...
I paraphrase:
Think about your opponents as police, and unbalance as speeding.
The speed limit is 35. You know this because, as a good player, you recognize equilibrium.
The faster you speed, the better your result.
Can you go 45? If you can, go 45.
Can you go 55?
65?
At 50NL, your opponents don't have very good radar guns, so they're just eyeballing how fast you're going. At 5/10, it's a different story.
Drive fast enough to make it to the 2+2 party early, but not so fast you get pulled over and the cop finds your bag of weed.
History and process of elimination.
People vastly underestimate how much information you can gain from a HUD and a few notes.
Keep track of what the BB flats with when you get to showdown. There's a few different types of hands players 3bet that you should keep track of (forget about TT+ and AQ+ obviously).
- Suited connectors
- Small-Mid PPs
- Broadway hands
- Q3s type trash
See what they do with the first 3 and try to figure out what they are 3betting with (other than their stackoff range). If they flat with all SC, small-MidPPs and broadway hands, but still manage to find 15% of hands to 3bet with over a decent sample size, you should really be raising an eyebrow.
It's honestly just diligent note-taking and comparing those notes with your HUD.
And it doesn't hurt to see them show down in a 3bet pot with Q3s.
It really depends...on a lot...
But, think about it this way...don't put so much of the effective stacks in the middle with a polarized range that, if your opponent puts in the final raise, you have to call because you will be folding a portion of your equity share if you fold.
Pretty basic, but...yeah. You can polarize in almost any situation (and you do, whether you realize it or not). Think about your Cbetting range on a K83r board HU. Do you Cbet KQ? A8? K2? 76s?
Often, you'll 3bet these naturally polarizing boards with the top and bottom of your range, and check back some of the bottom of your range and some of the middle of your range.
But, what if the above example occurred with an SPR of 1:1? You'd probably just end up shoving a merged value range, however wide it is.
Basically, what I'm saying is that all bets but the last possible one could conceivably be polarized against the right opponent in the right situation...I think.
I hope that helps? And...that what I said was actually an answer to your question...
EDIT: I rambled, and took some time to think.
I can't say with any sort of confidence that it works, which is where I agree with you. It's a really tough adjustment to make, and might be more -EV than folding if you're not...say...BelugaWhale. And I definitely went on a pretty significant downswing while trying to test it out.
The difficulty really lies in the lack of information you'll almost always have on your opponent. It relies on him having a correctly polarized range first. If you make this adjustment before confirming that, you're flushing money down the toilet. And then you really need to know what he'll do with the bottom and top of his range in a 3bet pot in position. We're still playing against a polarized range, so...that's really hard.
So, tbh, I can't say whether this adjustment is +EV or not. And I do largely agree with everything you said. The only reservation that I had was with that. We are actually becoming extremely exploitable, which is worth mentioning. Further, it's a bit of a one-barrel gun, as flatting a hand like KQ once will often halt an opponent's polarized 3betting for...quite some time (worthy investment?).
And thanks again for all the great posts you made. You just generally rock.
I think there are scenarios where your villian will not realize you are exploiting them... where i'm realizing the opponent is never adjusting.
There are some games, RUSH is an easy example, where you can often have a lot of information on your opponent without having direct history. Because of the nature of the game, they (in general) are probably not remembering a 3Bet history from any particular person.
There are also some player types that come to mind that you can 3Bet relentlessly:
.Multi-tabling players are an example, they play so many hands it may be less likely that they realize that you have 3Bet their LP raise the last four times.
.Tight Passives & their ilk. These players just have it ingrained in their mind to fold AQo-/AJs-JJ- to a 3Bet when OOP. Even when they periodically ignore that commandment, they either hit their set or they dont and they bow out
With a small sample it does not take many times for an opponent to adjust to make 3Betting them with ATC unprofitable but them calling that many 3Bets seems to take a lot of players out of their comfort zone. And certainly by the time they've adjusted their F3Bet from 90% to 70%, you'll no longer be 3Betting them with trash.
It's worth considering how we, ourselves, react when we raise from EP with AJo (or some not monster) and get 3Bet from MP by an opponent with a 11% 3Bet. I think many of us (guessing here) still have trouble flatting the 3bet and are most likely to fold or 4Bet. Folding sucks and 4Betting has massively bloated a pot PF and we may be OOP with an opponent who we know is willing to gamble.
There are some games, RUSH is an easy example, where you can often have a lot of information on your opponent without having direct history. Because of the nature of the game, they (in general) are probably not remembering a 3Bet history from any particular person.
There are also some player types that come to mind that you can 3Bet relentlessly:
.Multi-tabling players are an example, they play so many hands it may be less likely that they realize that you have 3Bet their LP raise the last four times.
.Tight Passives & their ilk. These players just have it ingrained in their mind to fold AQo-/AJs-JJ- to a 3Bet when OOP. Even when they periodically ignore that commandment, they either hit their set or they dont and they bow out
With a small sample it does not take many times for an opponent to adjust to make 3Betting them with ATC unprofitable but them calling that many 3Bets seems to take a lot of players out of their comfort zone. And certainly by the time they've adjusted their F3Bet from 90% to 70%, you'll no longer be 3Betting them with trash.
It's worth considering how we, ourselves, react when we raise from EP with AJo (or some not monster) and get 3Bet from MP by an opponent with a 11% 3Bet. I think many of us (guessing here) still have trouble flatting the 3bet and are most likely to fold or 4Bet. Folding sucks and 4Betting has massively bloated a pot PF and we may be OOP with an opponent who we know is willing to gamble.
And there are indeed other people that just won't ever notice...but even if the guy you're 3betting doesn't notice, your opponents also have to miss the fact that you're 3betting ATC against a particular nit. Well...there's not much to say here I guess. If someone doesn't notice that, in exploiting someone you yourself become extremely exploitable, then you should continue your exploitative strategy. Poker is a game of finesse in adjustments...because by adjusting to exploit someone you leave equilibrium and thus become exploitable yourself. But that's where large profits are created, so by all means do so.
Just...be mindful that people will adjust to you if you make it obvious. Terp has a great video on balance where he has a metaphor for this exact thought process...
I paraphrase:
Think about your opponents as police, and unbalance as speeding.
The speed limit is 35. You know this because, as a good player, you recognize equilibrium.
The faster you speed, the better your result.
Can you go 45? If you can, go 45.
Can you go 55?
65?
At 50NL, your opponents don't have very good radar guns, so they're just eyeballing how fast you're going. At 5/10, it's a different story.
Drive fast enough to make it to the 2+2 party early, but not so fast you get pulled over and the cop finds your bag of weed.
People vastly underestimate how much information you can gain from a HUD and a few notes.
Keep track of what the BB flats with when you get to showdown. There's a few different types of hands players 3bet that you should keep track of (forget about TT+ and AQ+ obviously).
- Suited connectors
- Small-Mid PPs
- Broadway hands
- Q3s type trash
See what they do with the first 3 and try to figure out what they are 3betting with (other than their stackoff range). If they flat with all SC, small-MidPPs and broadway hands, but still manage to find 15% of hands to 3bet with over a decent sample size, you should really be raising an eyebrow.
It's honestly just diligent note-taking and comparing those notes with your HUD.
And it doesn't hurt to see them show down in a 3bet pot with Q3s.
Thanks for sharing that! It further explains things I knew, but so much better.
The only thing that i'm having trouble with are the effective stacks in a tourny. Whats the smallest stack size can we 3bet if we are polarizing? Of course villian would have equal or greater the stack.
The only thing that i'm having trouble with are the effective stacks in a tourny. Whats the smallest stack size can we 3bet if we are polarizing? Of course villian would have equal or greater the stack.
But, think about it this way...don't put so much of the effective stacks in the middle with a polarized range that, if your opponent puts in the final raise, you have to call because you will be folding a portion of your equity share if you fold.
Pretty basic, but...yeah. You can polarize in almost any situation (and you do, whether you realize it or not). Think about your Cbetting range on a K83r board HU. Do you Cbet KQ? A8? K2? 76s?
Often, you'll 3bet these naturally polarizing boards with the top and bottom of your range, and check back some of the bottom of your range and some of the middle of your range.
But, what if the above example occurred with an SPR of 1:1? You'd probably just end up shoving a merged value range, however wide it is.
Basically, what I'm saying is that all bets but the last possible one could conceivably be polarized against the right opponent in the right situation...I think.
I hope that helps? And...that what I said was actually an answer to your question...
Really good post man, appreciate the writing.
Excellent article, thanks for sharing!
why does position matter less in 3bet pots? obv bc SPRs are lower, but why does this mean position is less advantageous? because the more money in pre, the less maneuverability post flop, so position just doesn't matter now that you can only do so much with your limited maneuverability?
Ronin,
What do you think are most efficent was to determine whether or not your oponnents have polarized 3 betting range. Is it something that i can look for in my HUD or does it come down to showdowns?
What do you think are most efficent was to determine whether or not your oponnents have polarized 3 betting range. Is it something that i can look for in my HUD or does it come down to showdowns?
why does position matter less in 3bet pots? obv bc SPRs are lower, but why does this mean position is less advantageous? because the more money in pre, the less maneuverability post flop, so position just doesn't matter now that you can only do so much with your limited maneuverability?
Position is still very impacting, but just not as important as it is in a single raised pot.
Sort of generalized...but I suppose if you take almost every benefit of having position (control size of pot, have more information on villain's holding, semibluff marginal equity, etc.), you can see that the benefits are diminished.
If you suspect someone is a solid, thinking regular and is capable of having a correctly polarized 3bet range, it really comes down to showdowns (not just in 3bet pots, but in pots where they flat) and stats. If someone is 3betting on the BTN 15% against the CO, but you see him flat QTs, AJs, 89s, 66...it's pretty tough to think of hands that he's 3betting if he doesn't have a polarized range.
I posted an answer to this question on page 2 as well...but the answer is basically...pay very close attention.
Also, it's probably fun to note that people soul-read you on JJ a good portion of the time. It makes for...a lot of aggression in a lot of spots where you smack the board (A or K high), and an easy showdown on J23 boards against the right villains.
Hope that helps!
Have a great one guys.
I see that u have read a lot from balugawhale. So have I, but while i watched "coaching kristy" @ deuces cracked i heard BW mention that u should polarize OOP, och depolarize IP. Did i get that compleatly wrong or what?
When u explained it, it sounded completly right. But, when i think about it, polarizing OOP makes it way easier to play postflop (in case villain flats IP) since we are never dominated and always know if we are value betting/folding and etc.
Did i get BWs concept completly wrong or do i have a point?
Also heard BW metion that u should never flat a 3bet OOP unless u are crushing ur opponents range. True?
Great article, man!
Edit: I play a lot of 200bb deep. How should my 3bets look like? Can u explain more about that?
When u explained it, it sounded completly right. But, when i think about it, polarizing OOP makes it way easier to play postflop (in case villain flats IP) since we are never dominated and always know if we are value betting/folding and etc.
Did i get BWs concept completly wrong or do i have a point?
Also heard BW metion that u should never flat a 3bet OOP unless u are crushing ur opponents range. True?
Great article, man!
Edit: I play a lot of 200bb deep. How should my 3bets look like? Can u explain more about that?
polarizing OOP makes you play a weaker range to play out of position post flop. how will this be easier to play? sounds like you're just more willing to fold in big pots.
But, as i said, i might got the concept completly wrong...
Great post ty
I see that u have read a lot from balugawhale. So have I, but while i watched "coaching kristy" @ deuces cracked i heard BW mention that u should polarize OOP, och depolarize IP. Did i get that compleatly wrong or what?
When u explained it, it sounded completly right. But, when i think about it, polarizing OOP makes it way easier to play postflop (in case villain flats IP) since we are never dominated and always know if we are value betting/folding and etc.
Did i get BWs concept completly wrong or do i have a point?
Also heard BW metion that u should never flat a 3bet OOP unless u are crushing ur opponents range. True?
Great article, man!
Edit: I play a lot of 200bb deep. How should my 3bets look like? Can u explain more about that?
When u explained it, it sounded completly right. But, when i think about it, polarizing OOP makes it way easier to play postflop (in case villain flats IP) since we are never dominated and always know if we are value betting/folding and etc.
Did i get BWs concept completly wrong or do i have a point?
Also heard BW metion that u should never flat a 3bet OOP unless u are crushing ur opponents range. True?
Great article, man!
Edit: I play a lot of 200bb deep. How should my 3bets look like? Can u explain more about that?
I actually didn't finish the Coaching Kristy series yet, so I'm not sure exactly.
But you shouldn't have much standardization in terms of your 3bet range, because it's so player dependent. Here's a general breakdown of what I do against different villains oop. As always, take all my opinions with a grain of salt.
- Against an opponent flatting a ton.
For examples, see Ansky v Durrrr series on DC. Durrrr rarely 4bets ip, but flats an extremely wide range. As a result, Ansky 3bets a range consisting of mostly broadway hands, the top of his range and TT+, and some of the larger SC. This is because he will often have Durrrr's flatting range dominated with a hand like KJ, while against others the 3bet is terrible.
This is the villain that in a 6max or FR game looks like: BTN steal 50+%. Fold to 3bet around 50% (less than 70%) and 4bet% below 9%. He's continuing be calling a ton of the time with a weak range. As such, he'll be forced to semibluff a lot of flops, and a dynamic can start where he's balancing his flop semibluff raise-cbet range with a lot of very marginal one-pair hands. So...you basically just flop top pair and get it in dominating his range. =)
- against an opponent who is 4betting a ton in response to your 3bets. He's probably attempting to steal less than normal, assuming his 4betting is a response to our 3betting. We are attacking a 30-50% range though. If he is folding an exploitable amount (65%+), we can polarize our range just like if we were IP. There's much to be said about using Axs here, because he's likely to 4bet Axs, and the ace chops a bunch of his bluffs. But he's also likely to get it in light. A lot of guys using this adjustment will structure like:
Stackoff: 77+, AQ+
Bluff: Axs, probably some random stuff
So if he's going to 4bet us a ton, we can start flatting our broadway hands and 3bet something like:
Stackoff range: 77+, AQ+, and it's even possible to start 3bet-betting more marginal 2-over hands in some cases. The idea is that we are using them as a semibluff. Against a solid stackoff range, a hand like 66 had about 35% equity. So we can treat it like a semibluff in calculating if it's a +ev 3bet-5bet by finding the gap between our opponent's 4bet range and stackoff range. Figure out what he does with TT, AJ/AQ and you might be able to find a pretty accurate measurement of his stackoff range.
So, let's just take a quick example...we 3bet to 10bb and villain 4bets to 25bb. We have 66. Villain's stackoff range is 5%. How often does he need to 4bet for us to 5bet shove 66?
Well, we win about 1/3 of the time when called.
Risk: 90 (we have 10 committed)
Reward: 35 (his 25 + our 10)
0EV bluff: would need to work 90/125 (125= 90+35). = 72%. But, we actually get a rebate, because we have 1/3 equity when called.
Cost when called = cost of shove - (equity*final pot) = 90 - (.35*200) = 90- 70 = 20. We lose 20bb when called.
Pot: 35bb
Cost: 20bb
Must work 20/55, or 36% of the time.
Someone please double check me on that...I screw this up all the time.
But, to break even, it looks like our opponent needs to fold 36% of the time for us to break-even.
Again...I actually feel like in probably wrong on this one...someone fix my early-morning ******ation if I am.
So, against someone we know is 4betting us a ton, we exploit by stacking off light and 3betting a polarized range.
If someone is stealing less than 30% of hands, I don't defend except for value. Its too easy for him to remain unexploitable.
When deep, I'm not as worried about the small pots, but more worried about balance and setting up the SPR. I 3bet a ton of SCs and hands that can flop big. Basically, position is still important, but we have initiative. So we just want to play hands that we can remain aggressive with when they hit. TPWK isn't something I'm going to play super hard 200bb deep, but a combodraw is. If my opponent is 4betting a lot 200bb deep, I'll start 3betting hands like QJs and JTs with the intention of flatting a 25bb 4bet and playing draws very aggressively...but I'm not sure if this is optimal in any way. This is because I assume his 4bet range is largely very polarized, as he'd like to take more flops IP.
My train is about to arrive, but I'll try and put something together about this. =)
I'll try and do some more research for the response as well.
As for flatting 3bets oop, yes. You should certainly be sure you have a strong equity edge and consider what you're doing "slowplaying", even if it is with a hand you would otherwise fold. We ONLY flat the 3bet oop because we believe we dominate the bluffing range of villains polarized 3betting range, and we believe he will spew postflop because he soul-reads us on TT. People don't see solid regs flatting 3bets oop very often, so they generally just go blank in terms of hand-reading. So when you dominate their TP, or his Qhigh, you stand to win a very large pot.
- someone asked me where I read all this stuff on page 2. I never answered, and it's a really important question! I tried to cite sources as often as possible, but I want to make sure I do what I can to give the credit to who it's really due.
- beluga whale, here, on DC and in the Deuce Plays podcast with Bart Hansen.
- Mers, here and on HUSnG.com
- Skates, here.
- a ton of others, here.
Almost all this info is on the 2p2 forums, tbh.
Will return to fix what is probably a ton of stupid things said. just thought I'd post what I had from the train ride so far.
awesome post man, read quite a bit of ur stuff now, all very good
Thanks for this post. Very informative/helpful.
This is one of the best things I've ever read on 2p2
Then you should read more 2+2.
Seriously though, thanks for the kind words.
I actually have an update. There was a part of the post that I just wasn't sure about, because it was something very new I was adding to my arsenal as I wrote (and the main reason I wrote the article)--that's what range it would be best to flat oop facing a polarized 3bet.
The research I did included testing at the tables, watching more of Beluga Whale's recent videos, and emailing Bart Hansen and John/Jeremiah (sp?) at cash plays.
Here's a spot:
Hero is in the CO with X (20% range)
Hero Raises to 3bb
CO 3bets to 10bb
2 folds
Hero?
Against 95% of players, I'm either going to 4bet or fold, because I'm just not good enough to play without position or initiative. However, villain's range is estimated to be something like:
A2s-A7s
J2s-J6s
Q2s-Q6s
K2s-K6s
QQ+, AK
So I can't 4bet with the intent of getting it in light. I can 4bet to 25bb with a polarized range myself, which certainly isn't bad. Villain's range is a little skewed to air, so I'm probably going to show a hefty profit due to the imbalance. When I 3bet to 25bb with my air range (probably suited Ax, because of blockers), I'm going need him to fold:
risk: 22
reward: 14.5
must work: 22/36.5 = about 60% of the time
So if 60% of his range is air, I'm going to show an immediate profit, not counting the fact that it probably helps me get my monsters paid off.
However, since a 4bet is what he wants, the theory is that flatting oop might leave him with too many dominated hands to continue. So what should my range look like?
- 4bet a polarized range, and flat the top of what I would otherwise fold (KQ, AJ, etc.)
or
- Flat the entire range with which I want to continue. If I'm raising 20%, I'm not being exploited by villain's 3bet if I continue with a range of about 7%. So, flat with 7% of total hands that dominate my opponent's air range.
What I personally found
In the first case, we get to play more hands in what appears to be a profitable manner. However, the issue is that when we flat, our opponent is probably soul-reading us as having ONLY the types of hands that we flat with...so instead of spewing chips to us, he's actually playing rather well (something I learned after losing several buyins testing...).
However, in the second case, we reach the flop with a balanced range. The issue with the first option is that it doesn't account for one of the basic principals of balance: protect your middling equity hands.
This isn't necessarily the correct range, but if we want to flat oop with about 7% of hands:
AJ+, KQ+, TT+ = 7.1%
This strategy definitely made me money, and more than I made 4betting in this situation.
Beluga Whale's vids
Basically, I saw him talk about this theory and then flat a 3bet with AA oop. He also talked about flatting AK and KQ in podcasts/otherwise. So I assume he believes flatting 100% of your continuing range is best.
Bart Hansen
Thinly veiled brag, he linked me to this article as his response.
Cash Plays
Yay, my question got aired!
Unfortunately, I must have worded myself poorly...the question never actually got answered. I think they believed I was asking if I should start flatting my entire opening range...
To summarize their input:
- Flatting a 3bet oop commits a large portion of your stack to the pot without initiative or position. That's a very bad thing, and you should definitely avoid it.
- Chill out! Yeah, you're being exploited, but just exploit others more efficiently when you are in position. (sort of like...don't worry about getting it in preflop with KK against AA, because everyone will do the same thing.)
- John mentioned that he prefers to 4bet a polarized range using blockers with Axs instead of 4betting PPs with the intent to stackoff light, or SC (same equity but generally play better when facing a flat). I agree with this range completely. He also said that he wouldn't mind flatting some speculative hands oop--such as KQ, AQ, etc.
So, their advice was to use the first of the two strategies when facing a 3bet oop. Note though, as amazing as they are, John did spend ten minutes talking about how hard a time he had at the cash tables when an internet kid on his immediate left kept 3betting his LP opens...so major props to these two guys and their amazing show, but I think the rest of the research suggests that IF you plan on adjusting to a villain who is 3betting you with a correctly polarized range, the answer is to flat 100% of your continuing range.
And many apologies that my poor communication skills left us without as good an answer as these two could have offered. Totally my fault, and I definitely felt like I wasted an opportunity to get some great insight.
I guess that completes the article...
And again, thanks for the kind words all. Gl at the tables.
Seriously though, thanks for the kind words.
I actually have an update. There was a part of the post that I just wasn't sure about, because it was something very new I was adding to my arsenal as I wrote (and the main reason I wrote the article)--that's what range it would be best to flat oop facing a polarized 3bet.
The research I did included testing at the tables, watching more of Beluga Whale's recent videos, and emailing Bart Hansen and John/Jeremiah (sp?) at cash plays.
Here's a spot:
Hero is in the CO with X (20% range)
Hero Raises to 3bb
CO 3bets to 10bb
2 folds
Hero?
Against 95% of players, I'm either going to 4bet or fold, because I'm just not good enough to play without position or initiative. However, villain's range is estimated to be something like:
A2s-A7s
J2s-J6s
Q2s-Q6s
K2s-K6s
QQ+, AK
So I can't 4bet with the intent of getting it in light. I can 4bet to 25bb with a polarized range myself, which certainly isn't bad. Villain's range is a little skewed to air, so I'm probably going to show a hefty profit due to the imbalance. When I 3bet to 25bb with my air range (probably suited Ax, because of blockers), I'm going need him to fold:
risk: 22
reward: 14.5
must work: 22/36.5 = about 60% of the time
So if 60% of his range is air, I'm going to show an immediate profit, not counting the fact that it probably helps me get my monsters paid off.
However, since a 4bet is what he wants, the theory is that flatting oop might leave him with too many dominated hands to continue. So what should my range look like?
- 4bet a polarized range, and flat the top of what I would otherwise fold (KQ, AJ, etc.)
or
- Flat the entire range with which I want to continue. If I'm raising 20%, I'm not being exploited by villain's 3bet if I continue with a range of about 7%. So, flat with 7% of total hands that dominate my opponent's air range.
What I personally found
In the first case, we get to play more hands in what appears to be a profitable manner. However, the issue is that when we flat, our opponent is probably soul-reading us as having ONLY the types of hands that we flat with...so instead of spewing chips to us, he's actually playing rather well (something I learned after losing several buyins testing...).
However, in the second case, we reach the flop with a balanced range. The issue with the first option is that it doesn't account for one of the basic principals of balance: protect your middling equity hands.
This isn't necessarily the correct range, but if we want to flat oop with about 7% of hands:
AJ+, KQ+, TT+ = 7.1%
This strategy definitely made me money, and more than I made 4betting in this situation.
Beluga Whale's vids
Basically, I saw him talk about this theory and then flat a 3bet with AA oop. He also talked about flatting AK and KQ in podcasts/otherwise. So I assume he believes flatting 100% of your continuing range is best.
Bart Hansen
Thinly veiled brag, he linked me to this article as his response.
Cash Plays
Yay, my question got aired!
Unfortunately, I must have worded myself poorly...the question never actually got answered. I think they believed I was asking if I should start flatting my entire opening range...
To summarize their input:
- Flatting a 3bet oop commits a large portion of your stack to the pot without initiative or position. That's a very bad thing, and you should definitely avoid it.
- Chill out! Yeah, you're being exploited, but just exploit others more efficiently when you are in position. (sort of like...don't worry about getting it in preflop with KK against AA, because everyone will do the same thing.)
- John mentioned that he prefers to 4bet a polarized range using blockers with Axs instead of 4betting PPs with the intent to stackoff light, or SC (same equity but generally play better when facing a flat). I agree with this range completely. He also said that he wouldn't mind flatting some speculative hands oop--such as KQ, AQ, etc.
So, their advice was to use the first of the two strategies when facing a 3bet oop. Note though, as amazing as they are, John did spend ten minutes talking about how hard a time he had at the cash tables when an internet kid on his immediate left kept 3betting his LP opens...so major props to these two guys and their amazing show, but I think the rest of the research suggests that IF you plan on adjusting to a villain who is 3betting you with a correctly polarized range, the answer is to flat 100% of your continuing range.
And many apologies that my poor communication skills left us without as good an answer as these two could have offered. Totally my fault, and I definitely felt like I wasted an opportunity to get some great insight.
I guess that completes the article...
And again, thanks for the kind words all. Gl at the tables.
All IMHO.
Hey guys. I wrote a similar article about a month ago, but did more research and wanted to release a new version. This is just a pretty standard 3bet article for beginning and intermediate players (and myself, as I write). I think there are at least a few somewhat newer players that will appreciate this post, so I hope you enjoy.
Also, if I screwed up any math or something...sorry. Any math is mostly irrelevant to the article, so I didn't double-check it. This is just supposed to give an idea of the "why" behind 3betting scenarios.
History
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Everyone 3bets a merged value range.
- Everyone realizes that 4bets are really big in No Limit, and folding JJ preflop sucks.
- Everyone stops 3betting, unless they have KK+, AK.
- Everyone stops calling 3bets, because no one 3bets anything but KK+, AK.
- Smart people started 3betting ATC because nits are hilarious.
- Nits got less nitty and started 4betting.
- Even smarter people invented polarization.
A long time ago, when online games were passive and nits made millions, people were 3betting a merged (depolarized) range preflop. The poker community moved from Limit Hold’em to No Limit Hold’em, and carried with it the belief that the best players aggressively raised their strong hands preflop for value. It didn’t take long for people to realize that 3betting AJ and being forced to fold to a 4bet sucked. So they stopped 3betting unless they had KK+ or AK.
Games became incredibly tight in 3bet scenarios as a result. Folding anything but KK+ or AK to a 3bet was not a rare tendency. As a result, a few 2+2ers realized that mashing the 3bet button would make them…a lot of money. So, they relentlessly pounded the button until the poker community caught on and began to adjust by 4betting light. At this time, there wasn’t much to 3bet theory, except that it was theorized to be good. In a recent interview on Deuce Plays with Bart Hansen, Beluga Whale said that during this time he 3bet almost his entire preflop range, and he certainly wasn’t alone.
It’s important to understand why 3betting ATC was good when it was…and that is because there were two types of players: people who folded to the 3bet OOP, and people who called and check-folded the flop. This is before people realized how lightly they could profitably stack off. It seems obvious to readjust your stackoff range now, but the idea that “this hand isn’t quite good enough to shove” instead of “this hand has X% equity against villain’s 3bet range” was still incredibly prevalent.
Take the following FR Cash game example:
Hero is on the BTN with 8h9h
Villain is in the HiJack with a PFR in unopened pots in the HJ of about 15%. He is folding everything but QQ+, AK. This is about 2.6% of hands. So he’s folding about 83% of the time.
UTG-MP2 folds
Villain raises to 4bb
Hero raises to 12bb
Villain folds
Our hero can raise ATC until villain adjusts and do so profitably. If our villain is only 4betting QQ+ and AK, and will never flat our 3bet, our hero doesn’t ever need to wake up with a hand. He will win 4bb about 83% of the time and his opponent will make 12bb about 17% of the time.
0.83(4) – 0.17(12) = 1.28
Hero will make an average of 1.28bb every time he 3bets the opponent, regardless of his holding. Consider that this situation occurs frequently, and you’ve just reached superuser status. Mind you, the math is very simplified. This is assuming villain never flats and hero never has a hand that can stack off.
Eventually, the games became less tight-passive and people began to 4bet a wider range against players with a wide 3bet%. This was huge for online poker. Before this point, a hand like QTs or 89s didn’t have as much equity as the action of 3betting had in fold equity, thus making the correct play a 3bet. However, once villains adjusted, the fold equity just wasn’t there. These hands now have more equity in their relative strength, couple with positional advantage, than is generated by the fold equity created by the action of 3betting.
This is where the idea of Polarization comes in...
Polarized 3betting and Merged 3betting
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Against someone who will not flat, but only 4bet or fold, polarize your range.
- Against someone who will flat a wide range, merge your range.
If someone realizes that you are 3betting often, they will adjust. In his article, "Facing a 3bet", knn05 echoed the common knowledge of players moving through the microstakes by saying "generally speaking, calling 3bets in the micros just isn't profitable". This is because as we rise through the stakes, we play against players who know less about the game than we do. Most of the players you play are stuck 3betting a slim but merged value range. Thus, calling 3bets out of position generally means you are playing a hand with a weaker range than your opponent out of position when playing against poor players, and the skill edge you have is not enough to counteract these disadvantages (unless you are deep enough). A strong, aggressive player has been taught the "rule" about not calling 3bets out of position, and so they are compelled to adjust by 4betting light.
This presents us with a couple of things to think about:
1. Even if it's +EV to 3bet someone with ATC, should we?
2. If our opponent adjusts by 4betting a wide value range, how should we readjust?
1. Even if it's +EV to 3bet someone with ATC, should we?
Probably not. You want to take advantage of someone in such a way that he doesn't realize you are exploiting him. If you 3bet him every time he raises, he'll adjust pretty quickly and no longer make the same exploitable mistake. If you get out of line just enough, he'll never realize you're exploiting him.
Also, by 3betting too often you make yourself vulnerable to resteals, whether the 4bet comes from the initial raiser or a third party.
2. We adjust to a wide 4bet by polarizing our 3betting range. If we are 3betting a hand that did not have enough equity to flat call and does not have enough equity to call a shove, then we are taking a hand that was previously a fold (zero EV) and 3betting it (adding EV). With those hands, we are 3betting a very strong stackoff range that will call the 4bet from our opponent (dominating their range). With our air, we can happily fold knowing our opponent made a mistake.
But, you may ask, how is your opponent making a mistake by 4betting AQ when you have Q3s?
Because our range either has AQ dominated, or is complete air. Thus, we are playing perfectly and our opponent is actually making what could be a -EV shove (dependent on how wide he is raising and how wide we are calling). Let's take an extreme example and say we are 3betting only AA, KK, AK, J2s-J6s, Q2s-Q6s, K2s-K6s, that means our range is:
- 4.5% air
- 2.1% nuts
Our range doesn't have to be this tight in most situations, but perhaps consider this range when UTG+1 against an UTG raiser that has a preflop range of 77+, AJ+. 2/3 of the time has us crushed, and makes a mistake by folding. What makes this idea interesting is that almost no one is going to cold 4bet you without the nuts...our range looks incredibly strong because very few players are balanced in this spot. Assuming our opponent doesn't flat the 3bet out of position, we are never making a mistake in the hand and our opponents are. According to Sklansky, that's money in the bank.
If you take a step back and look at the total EV of the situation, you'll realize that while your average profit per 3bet is going to drop (because you'll fold to 4bets 2/3 of the time when villain wakes up with the nuts), you're doing it three times as often. You turn what was 0EV into +EV at the same time you balance your ranges. This is key, and is the reason you don't 3bet a hand that you could otherwise flat with. If a hand already has positive EV in a flat and cannot stack off preflop, and your opponent is going to 4bet or fold, then you give up the EV you already had by flatting and replace it with the EV of the 3bet. As such, you can keep the EV of the flat, but gain the EV of the 3bet by adding hands to your preflop range that were not previously there.
So this is a general idea of what you should choose to 3bet when polarizing your range, and hopefully you understand why you should do it. Note that polarizing your 3bet range against a player who is going to flat your 3bet is suicide, as you can't play postflop poker with complete trash. This theory really hinges on your opponent either 4betting or folding.
Choosing what hands you want to 3bet as your bluff range is difficult, and I'm not going to pretend that I know the answer with any surety. The reason I chose the hands that I did is because:
- They have blockers to the hands most likely to flat our 3bet. TT-QQ seem to be the only hands that many people flat 3bets with oop with 100bb effective, and that's the worst result for us.
- They are suited, just in case.
- They are easy to count. If you memorize the percentages of different stackoff ranges and want to manipulate your bluff ranges to better counteract your exact opponents, the math is pretty simple on the fly. Each suited hand is about one-third of a percent, so you can create a range of hands that are easy to memorize and manipulate, making it so you don't have to think too hard about your frequencies once your range is created.
- They have hilariously low equity against pretty much any stackoff range, making it damn hard to be priced in to call a shove.
But, there is much to be said about being more precise in choosing the bottom of your range. For example, in the UTG+1 v UTG scenario, perhaps A2s-ATs would be a much better range to 3bet. Since our opponent's range is 77+, AJ+ and a rather large portion of the hands he shoves with contain an Ace, having one of the aces in the deck is...probably a very good thing combinatorically. This also offers us equity when he flats with a TT type hand. Since there is no way we can profitably play A2-ATs in that situation 100bbs deep, there's no reason we can't choose it to 3bet instead.
In practice, though, it's very difficult to construct a bluffing range from scratch, simply because it involves figuring out the exact range with which you can call, the percentage you wish to bluff, and then constructing that percent out of the hands immediately below the ones you can flat for postflop equity. So if you're pressured by the time bank across your twenty tables, it might be prudent to construct a few ranges for similar scenarios and tweak them as you go, adding or subtracting hands as necessary.
So, to summarize, polarization is when you have air or the nuts. Polarizing your 3bet range is done to combat someone who will not call your 3bet, but only 4bet or fold. And remember that your opponents are going to be much more likely to flat a 3bet when in position than out of position, which will again be mentioned later in this post. It's pretty important to realize this, regardless of whether you play full ring, six max or heads up, because polarizing by default when out of position is probably just going to turn into spew.
Facing a 3bet
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Against someone who is 3betting a polarized range, flat.
- Against someone who is 3betting a merged range, 4bet.
Many good players don't know why they are polarizing their 3bet range, and as such don't know how to counter it nor how to know when they should be merging their 3bet range instead. It's excruciatingly simple...if a polarized 3bet range relies on the initial raiser to never call, you should call when facing a polarized 3betting range rather than 4bet.
In episode 109 of Deuce Plays, Beluga Whale presented this idea. Although it seems simple, it's rather astonishing when you've spent several hundred thousand hands folding AJ out of position facing a 3bet. However, if you're certain your opponent has a properly polarized 3betting range, flatting with hands like KQ or AJ will leave you dominating 2/3 or more of your opponent's range. The question is how to balance...
Although flatting 3bets out of position isn't a new idea, it's somewhat new when it comes to reg versus reg situations. What was a difficult spot to navigate becomes very clear when you recognize your opponent's entire range (and how much more difficult the spot is for him than yourself). It's as simple as wanting to play postflop poker with KQ against your opponent's Q2.
Beluga Whale also discussed some common postflop situations. For example, your opponent will expect you to ship preflop with most strong hands that contain a Ace or a King, so flopping top pair will often mean generating a huge pot while your opponent is drawing dead. Once your opponent sees you flatting AJ and KQ type hands, he may begin to shut down on all two-broadway boards...in which case you can start flatting suited connectors out of position and, as Beluga Whale said...win every pot.
So, this leaves us with the question as to whether, facing a polarized range, you should ever 4bet. Should we be flatting a merged value range and remain balanced by never 4betting? Or should we 4bet a polarized range right back, and flat a merged middle-value range? My guess is on the latter of the two, but this is certainly just a guess. This would allow us to profitably continue with more hands than never 4betting would, as we would profitably 4bet hands as a bluff that we would otherwise fold. If you fracture your rnage into 4betting polarized and flatting merged, hands like suited connectors and small-mid pocket pairs become pretty crucial in the process. If you have the right dynamic, you can flat both of these facing a 3bet with correct stack sizes and perhaps 4bet suited Ax hands as the bluffing portion of your 4bet range. If you can't flat the 3bet profitably with your PPs and SCs, you will probably be in a situation in which you are 4betting all in instead of 4betting 2.5-3x your opponent's raise...in this case, you might want to 4bet shove the top of your range and balance with suited connectors and small pocket pairs (each of which has about 35% equity against most player's stackoff ranges).
The answer to whether or not to 4bet at all against a polarized range is most likely highly dependent on effective stack size and the ratio of nuts to air in your opponent's 3betting range. To be honest, I think someone who has been able to do more research on this subject should take over the mechanics of 4betting a polarized range at 100bbs...or if we should do this at all.
In Position and Out of Position
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Generally, people flat often in position, so merge your range as a default.
- Generally, people 4bet or fold out of position, so polarize your range as a default.
- Most decent players understand the two previous statements. Expect them to play accordingly as a default.
The difference between 3bet dynamics caused by the relative position of the initial raiser and 3better is caused by people's willingness to call 3bets in position as opposed to the disgust caused by flatting out of position. Strangely, this causes something of a backwards dynamic, as proven above. The larger the pot, the less position matters. Though the 3better takes control of the hand and has position, this matters less the larger the pot is bloated by preflop aggression. But this isn't to say it's incorrect to 3bet in position...I say this only to illustrate the beautiful contradictions of the game.
Most strong players know this, and those who know how to both polarize and merge a 3betting range often choose to polarize in position and merge when out of position, as they expect to face flats when out of position and 4bets when in position. The way to combat this is to do the exact opposite...until they adjust, which is when you'll have to readjust...
This is something that Beluga Whale didn't get into...should we be flatting as much as we do in position when 100bbs deep? The pot is already bloated to about 20bb when we flat the 3bet, which greatly depreciates the affect of our positional advantage. And we're most likely seeing the flop with a weaker range than our opponent, as we 4bet the top of our range and flat the middle while our opponent enters the flop with both the top and middle of his range. Against players who are 3betting hands like 99 or KJ when out of position, we should be more inclined to 4bet a polarized range than we should be to flat.
Full Ring, 6max and Heads Up
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Full ring and 6max are basically the same.
- Realize that you aren't in position when you 3bet Heads Up...
If you're structuring your ranges correctly, in that they are fluid and structured individually based on your opponent and your image (as opposed to being read off of a chart), then there isn't much a theoretical difference in the logic behind structuring your 3bet range between 6max and Full Ring. Obviously, ranges will be tighter in Full Ring than they will be in 6max...but that's basically all there is IMHO.
Heads up, everything changes. You'll never face a 3bet out of position, and you'll never be able to 3bet in position (other than by limp-raising). This means that you can, in most cases, just dump the idea of 3betting a polarized range. Most opponents are going to be flatting far too wide for a polarized range to remain profitable. However, playing Heads Up Cash is a fantastic way to practice on your BB v Steal game at the Full Ring and 6max tables (and, of course, vice-versa).
How effective stack sizes change the 3bet 4bet dynamic
Effective stack sizes have a drastic effect on what and how often you should be 3betting. For example, take a hand from our 3betting range at 100bb: K2s. In a HU SnG with effective stack sizes of 10bb, we can minraise-fold this hand on the button as a part of a polarized BTN strategy, and possibly 3bet-shove it for value facing a raise. Or, at 10bbs, we could profitably just shove all in with it. With 100BBs, we are 3betting with it as the bottom end of a polarized range. At 250+ BBs, we might be overcalling with it with the intention of over-flushing a suited connector. It's just interesting to note the dance our ranges play with the SPR.
There's just far too much to cover here...but a few things to note are the effects stack sizes have on suited connectors and small-mid pocket pairs, and how our 4bet ranges will change.
Let's begin with extraordinarily shallow stacks in a heads up scenario. Mers has a great video about the Full Tilt Heads Up Super Turbos in which he polarizes his opening minraises with a wide limping range. This works so well because, out of position, most 3bets are going to be 3bet shoves when incredibly shallow (they are certainly very committing regardless). Because his opening range is polarized, when Mers is faced with the 3bet he never has a difficult decision and gets it in with a very strong range relative to his opponent. What we can take from this is that the last possible raise can't be polarized, for obvious reasons. When Mers minraises his BTN, his opponent is already facing an SPR similar to that of a 3bet or 4bet in a 100bb game. So, Mers' initial raise can, in a sense, be construed as the only polarization which can take place. By limping in this situation, we are making a very similar play to that of flatting a raise in position. This is mostly just an interesting tangent to ponder...
An extension of that thought is how you perceive someone's initial raise in a 100bb game. Everything begins with a merged value range, and that range is then dissected into air, middling equity and monsters once our opponent presents a tighter range with a raise. Again, not much to be gained except an interesting perspective.
As for 3betting in such a short game, it's a mistake against a polarized range such as the one mentioned above, just like 4betting with a wide range is incorrect facing a 3bet from a polarized range at 100bbs. This holds true, at least, until stacks get so shallow that there is so much dead money caused by forced bets that it's impossible for our opponent to polarize a range correctly. Basically, at 10bb, just pretend that your opponent's opening raise is a 3bet and act accordingly in terms of structuring your range (widening your range to correctly match your opponent's, obviously).
Insane_Steve wrote a great article about 3bet shoving with about 25bbs, in which he breaks down the equity of small PPs, low SCs, mid SCs, weak Ax, and complete air against different types of opponents. To summarize:
- Against an opponent you suspect is not calling your 3bet very often, your edge in 3bet shoving comes from fold equity. On the off-chance you are called, it is best to have a pair or a middling suited connecting hand than a bad Ace.
- Against an opponent you suspect will call your 3bet shove somewhat wide but not a lot, your edge is still in fold equity, but suited conntectors drop a bit in value and marginal Aces increase in value.
- Against an opponent you suspect will call with a lot of his raising range, your EV in shoving comes from the fact that a middle Ax hand or a low pocket pair is a favorite against whatever trash he's calling with. Suited connectors should not be shoved against these opponents.
- 3bet shoving any pocket pair over a 3x raise with 25bb effective is almost never a mistake.
I think we have 100bb play pretty much covered, but it might be worth saying that hands that we were 3betting for value at 10bbs effective are now being 3bet as a bluff. Small PPs move from a 3bet for value at 25bbs to a flat for set-mining. We are no longer reshipping suited connectors as a 3bet, but instead flatting them with our small-mid pocket pairs. But once 3bet by a wide, merged range at 100bbs, we can consider reshipping suited connectors as a 4bet bluff for the same reason we 3bet them at 20bbs. If you really take the time to learn play at different stack sizes, you see the connection between SPR and the structuring of your ranges in such a way that makes all that preflop drama much simpler.
When stacks get deep, we are usually forced to depolarize our range as people are going to flat 3bets on a regular basis. But, we can set up a healthier SPR with our suited connectors and other hands that benefit from initiative and fold equity. In episode ten of Duece Plays, Beluga Whale discussed how the equity of the second nuts (and all non-nut value hands) works like a bell curve against stack depth. To illustrate the concept, ask yourself if you would ship bottom set at 100bbs. How about 200bbs? Tree-Fiddy? 500? At a certain point, the second nuts carries negative implied odds. This should affect the way we structure our preflop range. As the stacks get deeper, you should be focusing on setting up the SPR for its effect on decisions in later streets. 3betting becomes less about the benefit of fold equity and more about balancing ranges and remaining unreadable.
That's all I've got for now...look forward to many "tl;dr" replies. Have a great one, and I hope there was at least a nugget of information for the troopers that made it all the way through.
Hey guys. I wrote a similar article about a month ago, but did more research and wanted to release a new version. This is just a pretty standard 3bet article for beginning and intermediate players (and myself, as I write). I think there are at least a few somewhat newer players that will appreciate this post, so I hope you enjoy.
Also, if I screwed up any math or something...sorry. Any math is mostly irrelevant to the article, so I didn't double-check it. This is just supposed to give an idea of the "why" behind 3betting scenarios.
History
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Everyone 3bets a merged value range.
- Everyone realizes that 4bets are really big in No Limit, and folding JJ preflop sucks.
- Everyone stops 3betting, unless they have KK+, AK.
- Everyone stops calling 3bets, because no one 3bets anything but KK+, AK.
- Smart people started 3betting ATC because nits are hilarious.
- Nits got less nitty and started 4betting.
- Even smarter people invented polarization.
A long time ago, when online games were passive and nits made millions, people were 3betting a merged (depolarized) range preflop. The poker community moved from Limit Hold’em to No Limit Hold’em, and carried with it the belief that the best players aggressively raised their strong hands preflop for value. It didn’t take long for people to realize that 3betting AJ and being forced to fold to a 4bet sucked. So they stopped 3betting unless they had KK+ or AK.
Games became incredibly tight in 3bet scenarios as a result. Folding anything but KK+ or AK to a 3bet was not a rare tendency. As a result, a few 2+2ers realized that mashing the 3bet button would make them…a lot of money. So, they relentlessly pounded the button until the poker community caught on and began to adjust by 4betting light. At this time, there wasn’t much to 3bet theory, except that it was theorized to be good. In a recent interview on Deuce Plays with Bart Hansen, Beluga Whale said that during this time he 3bet almost his entire preflop range, and he certainly wasn’t alone.
It’s important to understand why 3betting ATC was good when it was…and that is because there were two types of players: people who folded to the 3bet OOP, and people who called and check-folded the flop. This is before people realized how lightly they could profitably stack off. It seems obvious to readjust your stackoff range now, but the idea that “this hand isn’t quite good enough to shove” instead of “this hand has X% equity against villain’s 3bet range” was still incredibly prevalent.
Take the following FR Cash game example:
Hero is on the BTN with 8h9h
Villain is in the HiJack with a PFR in unopened pots in the HJ of about 15%. He is folding everything but QQ+, AK. This is about 2.6% of hands. So he’s folding about 83% of the time.
UTG-MP2 folds
Villain raises to 4bb
Hero raises to 12bb
Villain folds
Our hero can raise ATC until villain adjusts and do so profitably. If our villain is only 4betting QQ+ and AK, and will never flat our 3bet, our hero doesn’t ever need to wake up with a hand. He will win 4bb about 83% of the time and his opponent will make 12bb about 17% of the time.
0.83(4) – 0.17(12) = 1.28
Hero will make an average of 1.28bb every time he 3bets the opponent, regardless of his holding. Consider that this situation occurs frequently, and you’ve just reached superuser status. Mind you, the math is very simplified. This is assuming villain never flats and hero never has a hand that can stack off.
Eventually, the games became less tight-passive and people began to 4bet a wider range against players with a wide 3bet%. This was huge for online poker. Before this point, a hand like QTs or 89s didn’t have as much equity as the action of 3betting had in fold equity, thus making the correct play a 3bet. However, once villains adjusted, the fold equity just wasn’t there. These hands now have more equity in their relative strength, couple with positional advantage, than is generated by the fold equity created by the action of 3betting.
This is where the idea of Polarization comes in...
Polarized 3betting and Merged 3betting
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Against someone who will not flat, but only 4bet or fold, polarize your range.
- Against someone who will flat a wide range, merge your range.
If someone realizes that you are 3betting often, they will adjust. In his article, "Facing a 3bet", knn05 echoed the common knowledge of players moving through the microstakes by saying "generally speaking, calling 3bets in the micros just isn't profitable". This is because as we rise through the stakes, we play against players who know less about the game than we do. Most of the players you play are stuck 3betting a slim but merged value range. Thus, calling 3bets out of position generally means you are playing a hand with a weaker range than your opponent out of position when playing against poor players, and the skill edge you have is not enough to counteract these disadvantages (unless you are deep enough). A strong, aggressive player has been taught the "rule" about not calling 3bets out of position, and so they are compelled to adjust by 4betting light.
This presents us with a couple of things to think about:
1. Even if it's +EV to 3bet someone with ATC, should we?
2. If our opponent adjusts by 4betting a wide value range, how should we readjust?
1. Even if it's +EV to 3bet someone with ATC, should we?
Probably not. You want to take advantage of someone in such a way that he doesn't realize you are exploiting him. If you 3bet him every time he raises, he'll adjust pretty quickly and no longer make the same exploitable mistake. If you get out of line just enough, he'll never realize you're exploiting him.
Also, by 3betting too often you make yourself vulnerable to resteals, whether the 4bet comes from the initial raiser or a third party.
2. We adjust to a wide 4bet by polarizing our 3betting range. If we are 3betting a hand that did not have enough equity to flat call and does not have enough equity to call a shove, then we are taking a hand that was previously a fold (zero EV) and 3betting it (adding EV). With those hands, we are 3betting a very strong stackoff range that will call the 4bet from our opponent (dominating their range). With our air, we can happily fold knowing our opponent made a mistake.
But, you may ask, how is your opponent making a mistake by 4betting AQ when you have Q3s?
Because our range either has AQ dominated, or is complete air. Thus, we are playing perfectly and our opponent is actually making what could be a -EV shove (dependent on how wide he is raising and how wide we are calling). Let's take an extreme example and say we are 3betting only AA, KK, AK, J2s-J6s, Q2s-Q6s, K2s-K6s, that means our range is:
- 4.5% air
- 2.1% nuts
Our range doesn't have to be this tight in most situations, but perhaps consider this range when UTG+1 against an UTG raiser that has a preflop range of 77+, AJ+. 2/3 of the time has us crushed, and makes a mistake by folding. What makes this idea interesting is that almost no one is going to cold 4bet you without the nuts...our range looks incredibly strong because very few players are balanced in this spot. Assuming our opponent doesn't flat the 3bet out of position, we are never making a mistake in the hand and our opponents are. According to Sklansky, that's money in the bank.
If you take a step back and look at the total EV of the situation, you'll realize that while your average profit per 3bet is going to drop (because you'll fold to 4bets 2/3 of the time when villain wakes up with the nuts), you're doing it three times as often. You turn what was 0EV into +EV at the same time you balance your ranges. This is key, and is the reason you don't 3bet a hand that you could otherwise flat with. If a hand already has positive EV in a flat and cannot stack off preflop, and your opponent is going to 4bet or fold, then you give up the EV you already had by flatting and replace it with the EV of the 3bet. As such, you can keep the EV of the flat, but gain the EV of the 3bet by adding hands to your preflop range that were not previously there.
So this is a general idea of what you should choose to 3bet when polarizing your range, and hopefully you understand why you should do it. Note that polarizing your 3bet range against a player who is going to flat your 3bet is suicide, as you can't play postflop poker with complete trash. This theory really hinges on your opponent either 4betting or folding.
Choosing what hands you want to 3bet as your bluff range is difficult, and I'm not going to pretend that I know the answer with any surety. The reason I chose the hands that I did is because:
- They have blockers to the hands most likely to flat our 3bet. TT-QQ seem to be the only hands that many people flat 3bets with oop with 100bb effective, and that's the worst result for us.
- They are suited, just in case.
- They are easy to count. If you memorize the percentages of different stackoff ranges and want to manipulate your bluff ranges to better counteract your exact opponents, the math is pretty simple on the fly. Each suited hand is about one-third of a percent, so you can create a range of hands that are easy to memorize and manipulate, making it so you don't have to think too hard about your frequencies once your range is created.
- They have hilariously low equity against pretty much any stackoff range, making it damn hard to be priced in to call a shove.
But, there is much to be said about being more precise in choosing the bottom of your range. For example, in the UTG+1 v UTG scenario, perhaps A2s-ATs would be a much better range to 3bet. Since our opponent's range is 77+, AJ+ and a rather large portion of the hands he shoves with contain an Ace, having one of the aces in the deck is...probably a very good thing combinatorically. This also offers us equity when he flats with a TT type hand. Since there is no way we can profitably play A2-ATs in that situation 100bbs deep, there's no reason we can't choose it to 3bet instead.
In practice, though, it's very difficult to construct a bluffing range from scratch, simply because it involves figuring out the exact range with which you can call, the percentage you wish to bluff, and then constructing that percent out of the hands immediately below the ones you can flat for postflop equity. So if you're pressured by the time bank across your twenty tables, it might be prudent to construct a few ranges for similar scenarios and tweak them as you go, adding or subtracting hands as necessary.
So, to summarize, polarization is when you have air or the nuts. Polarizing your 3bet range is done to combat someone who will not call your 3bet, but only 4bet or fold. And remember that your opponents are going to be much more likely to flat a 3bet when in position than out of position, which will again be mentioned later in this post. It's pretty important to realize this, regardless of whether you play full ring, six max or heads up, because polarizing by default when out of position is probably just going to turn into spew.
Facing a 3bet
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Against someone who is 3betting a polarized range, flat.
- Against someone who is 3betting a merged range, 4bet.
Many good players don't know why they are polarizing their 3bet range, and as such don't know how to counter it nor how to know when they should be merging their 3bet range instead. It's excruciatingly simple...if a polarized 3bet range relies on the initial raiser to never call, you should call when facing a polarized 3betting range rather than 4bet.
In episode 109 of Deuce Plays, Beluga Whale presented this idea. Although it seems simple, it's rather astonishing when you've spent several hundred thousand hands folding AJ out of position facing a 3bet. However, if you're certain your opponent has a properly polarized 3betting range, flatting with hands like KQ or AJ will leave you dominating 2/3 or more of your opponent's range. The question is how to balance...
Although flatting 3bets out of position isn't a new idea, it's somewhat new when it comes to reg versus reg situations. What was a difficult spot to navigate becomes very clear when you recognize your opponent's entire range (and how much more difficult the spot is for him than yourself). It's as simple as wanting to play postflop poker with KQ against your opponent's Q2.
Beluga Whale also discussed some common postflop situations. For example, your opponent will expect you to ship preflop with most strong hands that contain a Ace or a King, so flopping top pair will often mean generating a huge pot while your opponent is drawing dead. Once your opponent sees you flatting AJ and KQ type hands, he may begin to shut down on all two-broadway boards...in which case you can start flatting suited connectors out of position and, as Beluga Whale said...win every pot.
So, this leaves us with the question as to whether, facing a polarized range, you should ever 4bet. Should we be flatting a merged value range and remain balanced by never 4betting? Or should we 4bet a polarized range right back, and flat a merged middle-value range? My guess is on the latter of the two, but this is certainly just a guess. This would allow us to profitably continue with more hands than never 4betting would, as we would profitably 4bet hands as a bluff that we would otherwise fold. If you fracture your rnage into 4betting polarized and flatting merged, hands like suited connectors and small-mid pocket pairs become pretty crucial in the process. If you have the right dynamic, you can flat both of these facing a 3bet with correct stack sizes and perhaps 4bet suited Ax hands as the bluffing portion of your 4bet range. If you can't flat the 3bet profitably with your PPs and SCs, you will probably be in a situation in which you are 4betting all in instead of 4betting 2.5-3x your opponent's raise...in this case, you might want to 4bet shove the top of your range and balance with suited connectors and small pocket pairs (each of which has about 35% equity against most player's stackoff ranges).
The answer to whether or not to 4bet at all against a polarized range is most likely highly dependent on effective stack size and the ratio of nuts to air in your opponent's 3betting range. To be honest, I think someone who has been able to do more research on this subject should take over the mechanics of 4betting a polarized range at 100bbs...or if we should do this at all.
In Position and Out of Position
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Generally, people flat often in position, so merge your range as a default.
- Generally, people 4bet or fold out of position, so polarize your range as a default.
- Most decent players understand the two previous statements. Expect them to play accordingly as a default.
The difference between 3bet dynamics caused by the relative position of the initial raiser and 3better is caused by people's willingness to call 3bets in position as opposed to the disgust caused by flatting out of position. Strangely, this causes something of a backwards dynamic, as proven above. The larger the pot, the less position matters. Though the 3better takes control of the hand and has position, this matters less the larger the pot is bloated by preflop aggression. But this isn't to say it's incorrect to 3bet in position...I say this only to illustrate the beautiful contradictions of the game.
Most strong players know this, and those who know how to both polarize and merge a 3betting range often choose to polarize in position and merge when out of position, as they expect to face flats when out of position and 4bets when in position. The way to combat this is to do the exact opposite...until they adjust, which is when you'll have to readjust...
This is something that Beluga Whale didn't get into...should we be flatting as much as we do in position when 100bbs deep? The pot is already bloated to about 20bb when we flat the 3bet, which greatly depreciates the affect of our positional advantage. And we're most likely seeing the flop with a weaker range than our opponent, as we 4bet the top of our range and flat the middle while our opponent enters the flop with both the top and middle of his range. Against players who are 3betting hands like 99 or KJ when out of position, we should be more inclined to 4bet a polarized range than we should be to flat.
Full Ring, 6max and Heads Up
cliffnotes for lazy people:
- Full ring and 6max are basically the same.
- Realize that you aren't in position when you 3bet Heads Up...
If you're structuring your ranges correctly, in that they are fluid and structured individually based on your opponent and your image (as opposed to being read off of a chart), then there isn't much a theoretical difference in the logic behind structuring your 3bet range between 6max and Full Ring. Obviously, ranges will be tighter in Full Ring than they will be in 6max...but that's basically all there is IMHO.
Heads up, everything changes. You'll never face a 3bet out of position, and you'll never be able to 3bet in position (other than by limp-raising). This means that you can, in most cases, just dump the idea of 3betting a polarized range. Most opponents are going to be flatting far too wide for a polarized range to remain profitable. However, playing Heads Up Cash is a fantastic way to practice on your BB v Steal game at the Full Ring and 6max tables (and, of course, vice-versa).
How effective stack sizes change the 3bet 4bet dynamic
Effective stack sizes have a drastic effect on what and how often you should be 3betting. For example, take a hand from our 3betting range at 100bb: K2s. In a HU SnG with effective stack sizes of 10bb, we can minraise-fold this hand on the button as a part of a polarized BTN strategy, and possibly 3bet-shove it for value facing a raise. Or, at 10bbs, we could profitably just shove all in with it. With 100BBs, we are 3betting with it as the bottom end of a polarized range. At 250+ BBs, we might be overcalling with it with the intention of over-flushing a suited connector. It's just interesting to note the dance our ranges play with the SPR.
There's just far too much to cover here...but a few things to note are the effects stack sizes have on suited connectors and small-mid pocket pairs, and how our 4bet ranges will change.
Let's begin with extraordinarily shallow stacks in a heads up scenario. Mers has a great video about the Full Tilt Heads Up Super Turbos in which he polarizes his opening minraises with a wide limping range. This works so well because, out of position, most 3bets are going to be 3bet shoves when incredibly shallow (they are certainly very committing regardless). Because his opening range is polarized, when Mers is faced with the 3bet he never has a difficult decision and gets it in with a very strong range relative to his opponent. What we can take from this is that the last possible raise can't be polarized, for obvious reasons. When Mers minraises his BTN, his opponent is already facing an SPR similar to that of a 3bet or 4bet in a 100bb game. So, Mers' initial raise can, in a sense, be construed as the only polarization which can take place. By limping in this situation, we are making a very similar play to that of flatting a raise in position. This is mostly just an interesting tangent to ponder...
An extension of that thought is how you perceive someone's initial raise in a 100bb game. Everything begins with a merged value range, and that range is then dissected into air, middling equity and monsters once our opponent presents a tighter range with a raise. Again, not much to be gained except an interesting perspective.
As for 3betting in such a short game, it's a mistake against a polarized range such as the one mentioned above, just like 4betting with a wide range is incorrect facing a 3bet from a polarized range at 100bbs. This holds true, at least, until stacks get so shallow that there is so much dead money caused by forced bets that it's impossible for our opponent to polarize a range correctly. Basically, at 10bb, just pretend that your opponent's opening raise is a 3bet and act accordingly in terms of structuring your range (widening your range to correctly match your opponent's, obviously).
Insane_Steve wrote a great article about 3bet shoving with about 25bbs, in which he breaks down the equity of small PPs, low SCs, mid SCs, weak Ax, and complete air against different types of opponents. To summarize:
- Against an opponent you suspect is not calling your 3bet very often, your edge in 3bet shoving comes from fold equity. On the off-chance you are called, it is best to have a pair or a middling suited connecting hand than a bad Ace.
- Against an opponent you suspect will call your 3bet shove somewhat wide but not a lot, your edge is still in fold equity, but suited conntectors drop a bit in value and marginal Aces increase in value.
- Against an opponent you suspect will call with a lot of his raising range, your EV in shoving comes from the fact that a middle Ax hand or a low pocket pair is a favorite against whatever trash he's calling with. Suited connectors should not be shoved against these opponents.
- 3bet shoving any pocket pair over a 3x raise with 25bb effective is almost never a mistake.
I think we have 100bb play pretty much covered, but it might be worth saying that hands that we were 3betting for value at 10bbs effective are now being 3bet as a bluff. Small PPs move from a 3bet for value at 25bbs to a flat for set-mining. We are no longer reshipping suited connectors as a 3bet, but instead flatting them with our small-mid pocket pairs. But once 3bet by a wide, merged range at 100bbs, we can consider reshipping suited connectors as a 4bet bluff for the same reason we 3bet them at 20bbs. If you really take the time to learn play at different stack sizes, you see the connection between SPR and the structuring of your ranges in such a way that makes all that preflop drama much simpler.
When stacks get deep, we are usually forced to depolarize our range as people are going to flat 3bets on a regular basis. But, we can set up a healthier SPR with our suited connectors and other hands that benefit from initiative and fold equity. In episode ten of Duece Plays, Beluga Whale discussed how the equity of the second nuts (and all non-nut value hands) works like a bell curve against stack depth. To illustrate the concept, ask yourself if you would ship bottom set at 100bbs. How about 200bbs? Tree-Fiddy? 500? At a certain point, the second nuts carries negative implied odds. This should affect the way we structure our preflop range. As the stacks get deeper, you should be focusing on setting up the SPR for its effect on decisions in later streets. 3betting becomes less about the benefit of fold equity and more about balancing ranges and remaining unreadable.
That's all I've got for now...look forward to many "tl;dr" replies. Have a great one, and I hope there was at least a nugget of information for the troopers that made it all the way through.
^^ x 1000.
I was doing the EXACT same document. Been compiling inputs and quotes from videos and ebooks to make it clear how polarization and merging are influenced by stack sizes, position, how to react to them and etc..
No need to do that job now. 5 stars.
Very well written article. I have a few questions about it,
In theory, flatting vs a 3bet OOP with a merged range is correct, but against a similarly skilled opponent, do you believe our equity edge outweighs their positional advantage? I'm still in the camp that 4bets or folds oop, and I have a very obvious/exploitable calling range against regs of AQ/JJ/TT, and thats about it. Would you suggest adding QJs, KQ, AJ, etc to a calling range to balance, or rather just adding premiums to the calling range occasionally? Is there a thread addressing calling 3bets oop that you can recommend?
Also, to clarify, when in position, would you never 3b KQ, QJ, AJ, 88, 99, etc against a player who rarely flats oop? I understand the theory, I suppose I'm struggling because I play 100nl (6max), and have been working on a very LAG game that heavily revolves around 3betting the **** out of the nitty regs and fish alike. Looking at today's session of 400 hands, I had a 14.9% 3b, with a 23% 3b from the blinds. I haven't really been focusing on merging or polarizing my 3b range in position, rather just lumping it into 3b for value or as a bluff. Can I have a very wide 3b% while polarizing my range still? Or do you think 100nl regs are weak enough in general that 3betting a merged range IP is profitable?
I have a few more questions, but I'll let other people comment first.
In theory, flatting vs a 3bet OOP with a merged range is correct, but against a similarly skilled opponent, do you believe our equity edge outweighs their positional advantage? I'm still in the camp that 4bets or folds oop, and I have a very obvious/exploitable calling range against regs of AQ/JJ/TT, and thats about it. Would you suggest adding QJs, KQ, AJ, etc to a calling range to balance, or rather just adding premiums to the calling range occasionally? Is there a thread addressing calling 3bets oop that you can recommend?
Also, to clarify, when in position, would you never 3b KQ, QJ, AJ, 88, 99, etc against a player who rarely flats oop? I understand the theory, I suppose I'm struggling because I play 100nl (6max), and have been working on a very LAG game that heavily revolves around 3betting the **** out of the nitty regs and fish alike. Looking at today's session of 400 hands, I had a 14.9% 3b, with a 23% 3b from the blinds. I haven't really been focusing on merging or polarizing my 3b range in position, rather just lumping it into 3b for value or as a bluff. Can I have a very wide 3b% while polarizing my range still? Or do you think 100nl regs are weak enough in general that 3betting a merged range IP is profitable?
I have a few more questions, but I'll let other people comment first.
That way when you show up with AA, he'll be way more careful.
HOWEVER, be careful to what that does to your 4betting range. If you include premium hands to your calling range, your premium/air ratio will be skewed towards air when you 4bet and he will blow you off the hand accordingly.
I might have one question though...more of a semantic one
IF we are to include a light stack off range in our 3bets, assuming villain is aggressive enough to 5bet shove a range against which we have 33%+ equity, how can it still be considered polarized? Because to me, the hands we include as our semi bluffs are medium category. It widens our value range just like a merged range.
Or in other words:
A villain 3 betting AQs, TT+ and junk, is he more polarized than merged?
I'd say so (that he's still polarized). I believe it depends on how the villain perceives his premium category to be, what do you think?
Merging becomes clear when he starts using most of the broadways and pocket pairs.
Basically, with a merged 3bet range you are playing 3 sides:
-the air in your range will get money by making the villain fold their weak hands
-the medium category wishes for a call against a hand its dominating (you can't really shove KJs vs a passive's 4bet)
-the premium category of course just wants to get it in...
With that in mind, if we are to stack off light with some medium hands in our polarization, this creates an exception mainly because of stack sizes at 100bb, all the dead money, and the fact that villain has a 1.7% wider range than normal in his premium category (TT+, AQo, AQs) making it break even or slightly profitable to shove 55+.
So in one instance, where its clear we are merged,we still value bet medium hands, but we can't stand a shove and we'll fold. While in the other situation, we basically widen our value range with medium hands that we will shove. Thus creating a polarized range with alot more "nuts" than before in our nuts:air ratio.
Oh by the way, to me, polarization is a form of balance.
Gush this seemed rather incoherent, hopefully, you'll be able to tell me what you think!
IF we are to include a light stack off range in our 3bets, assuming villain is aggressive enough to 5bet shove a range against which we have 33%+ equity, how can it still be considered polarized? Because to me, the hands we include as our semi bluffs are medium category. It widens our value range just like a merged range.
Or in other words:
A villain 3 betting AQs, TT+ and junk, is he more polarized than merged?
I'd say so (that he's still polarized). I believe it depends on how the villain perceives his premium category to be, what do you think?
Merging becomes clear when he starts using most of the broadways and pocket pairs.
Basically, with a merged 3bet range you are playing 3 sides:
-the air in your range will get money by making the villain fold their weak hands
-the medium category wishes for a call against a hand its dominating (you can't really shove KJs vs a passive's 4bet)
-the premium category of course just wants to get it in...
With that in mind, if we are to stack off light with some medium hands in our polarization, this creates an exception mainly because of stack sizes at 100bb, all the dead money, and the fact that villain has a 1.7% wider range than normal in his premium category (TT+, AQo, AQs) making it break even or slightly profitable to shove 55+.
So in one instance, where its clear we are merged,we still value bet medium hands, but we can't stand a shove and we'll fold. While in the other situation, we basically widen our value range with medium hands that we will shove. Thus creating a polarized range with alot more "nuts" than before in our nuts:air ratio.
Oh by the way, to me, polarization is a form of balance.
Gush this seemed rather incoherent, hopefully, you'll be able to tell me what you think!
So, their advice was to use the first of the two strategies when facing a 3bet oop. Note though, as amazing as they are, John did spend ten minutes talking about how hard a time he had at the cash tables when an internet kid on his immediate left kept 3betting his LP opens...so major props to these two guys and their amazing show, but I think the rest of the research suggests that IF you plan on adjusting to a villain who is 3betting you with a correctly polarized range, the answer is to flat 100% of your continuing range.
This makes me think of the Dimnishing medium value category...
in that spot, what you can consider medium value (in the whole spectrum vs that same spectrum) can be limited to TT, MAYBE JJ, and AQs. if you flat with these and have a 4bet polarized range, its pretty easy to counter it.
so it comes a time vs a certain player, or when the dynamic is right, where you just include these hands into your polarized range as the "stack off" portion, thus adding some nuts to your nuts:air ratio.. . thus DIMNISHING your medium value category or in this case, removing it completely
This is when people will react by adding PPs to their shoving range with their own polarized range. Since PPs have like 30-35% equity vs TT+, AQs+. IM NOT SURE i'd ever include, SCs, though..i'd much rather always flat those, so I'm not sure why you mentioned somewhere you would stack off with Suited connectors ...as it seems like a gamble and i wouldnt 3bet most SCs vs a polarized range in the first place (i might have misread)
If you can't flat the 3bet profitably with your PPs and SCs, you will probably be in a situation in which you are 4betting all in instead of 4betting 2.5-3x your opponent's raise...in this case, you might want to 4bet shove the top of your range and balance with suited connectors and small pocket pairs (each of which has about 35% equity against most player's stackoff ranges).
BTW, your math is right
Assuming:
.50 ¢ / 1$
Villain raises to 3bbs
Hero 3bets to 10bbs
Villain 4bets to 25bbs
Pot is 38bbs
Hero shove for 90bbs
Villain has to fold:
ev(0) = [ev(fold)] * X + [ev(call)*(1-X)]
ev(0) = 38X + [(200 * 0.35) -90 * (1-X)]
ev(0) = 38X + (70 - 90) * (1-X)
ev(0) = 38X + -20 * (1-X)
ev(0) = 38X + -20* + 20X
ev(0) = 58x + - 20
-58X/-58 = -20/-58
X = 0.345
Assuming:
.50 ¢ / 1$
Villain raises to 3bbs
Hero 3bets to 10bbs
Villain 4bets to 25bbs
Pot is 38bbs
Hero shove for 90bbs
Villain has to fold:
ev(0) = [ev(fold)] * X + [ev(call)*(1-X)]
ev(0) = 38X + [(200 * 0.35) -90 * (1-X)]
ev(0) = 38X + (70 - 90) * (1-X)
ev(0) = 38X + -20 * (1-X)
ev(0) = 38X + -20* + 20X
ev(0) = 58x + - 20
-58X/-58 = -20/-58
X = 0.345
First of all, ^ Thanks for checking my math.
I am in fact very prone to making mistakes. That's what excel is for.
I know it's been like 3 weeks since the last post, but there's a lot of solid discussion...haven't really been online since black Friday. So sorry for reviving a mostly-dead topic.
IMHO, the moment we start flatting 3 bets oop with the middle of our range is the moment we stop 4betting a villain. We really want to protect the middle of our range here, and research seems to suggest that flatting with 100% of our continuing range is actually the best way to counter a polarized 3better (at least for a short period of time).
Strangely, I found that few people actually adjusted their 3betting to me once I did that...they just continued 3betting a polarized range when IP, despite the fact that I was never 4betting them. Some people just stopped 3betting, of course. But very few people actually merged their 3betting range in situations where they were originally polarized, and this is generally a very good indication that the adjustment holds at least for a while. What you don't want to see is someone adjust by 3betting hands like AJ, ATs, KQ, SCs, etc. If your opponent re-adjusts and merges this range, you have to again adjust to polarize your 4betting range (folding the middle of your range) and force folds from the middle of his range.
I think what you're talking about is...a polarized range with a very wide stackoff range? There is a point where polarization and merging can be...a little blurry. And it generally occurs when you are structuring your range incorrectly. A Polarized range can take many forms...because there are two ranges creating it. When you structure a merged range, you're just thinking about how wide a merged range you have. A Polarized range has a stackoff range and an air range, both of which need to be structured according to your opponent.
Here are some random pictures...I dunno, they help me.
A= "Air"
S= "Stackoff range"
Please note that just to the right of the air segment is the theoretical "0-equity call" point, meaning everything to the left of the best air hand is a -EV flat preflop.
A Polarized range structured against someone who folds to 80% of 3bets and 4bets AK, KK and AA. (We have a very tight stackoff range and a ton of air)
------------------------[ A ]-----[S]
A Polarized range structured against someone who folds to 60% of 3bets and 4bets a wide polarized range. (We have added small-mid PPs to our 3bet range, and have eliminated a lot of air from our range)
------------------------[ A ]-------------------[ N ]
A Merged range. (Could include SCs, broadway, etc.)
----------------------------------------------[ S ]
A ridiculously wide range that is actually merged. (3betting everything from air to nuts and in-between)
---------------------[A ][ S1 ][S ]
Obviously, if you are 3betting both junk, the nuts and everything in-between, you are actually 3betting a merged range. This can be okay...if you want to monkey-tilt someone into 4betting every time you 3bet. But you are likely losing value from the S1 category, and A will become -EV very quickly as your opponent adjusts. Most people will just tighten their opening range extremely and 4bet nearly 100% if you start 3betting this range. So if you do this, it's obvious that it should ebb and flow. This is pretty close to what you could 3bet profitably in 2007 (I think...).
So when you 3bet a hand like 66, you are adding it to "S". You are doing this because you believe there to be a significant gap between your opponent's 4bet and stackoff range, or because your opponent is 4betting certain hands he shouldn't be (JT, KJ, etc.), or because your opponent is stacking off with hands he shouldn't (A2...pretty much).
And stacking off with SC is NOT a part of a polarized or merged strategy generally, but there are situations where it is very good. Basically think about it this way...
- If your bet is committing, you can't fold and thus can't polarize.
- There are only so many hands you can put into a merged range.
Shoving with SC is good when:
- Your opponent is raising with a very wide merged range, or a very air-heavy value range.
- Your opponent's stackoff range is extremely tight (KK, AA, AK, for example).
Thus, shoving with 9Ts is going to show pretty similar equity results as small- mid pocket pairs. Further, all of these hands are showing pretty similar equity results as QQ. If we could polarize, we would love to re-reraise with Ax hands in a polarized range, because it knocks out a ton of your opponent's combos of nuts. Because we can't do that, we want to re-raise with our highest-equity hands. When we do so, we re-raise all-in only.
If you watch some HU SnG training vids, you'll see some instances where it's okay. There are other situations at a FR table where it's okay, but they are certainly rare (I think I did it twice in the past 100k hands...). As a FR player, this is likely something you can just forget about. But if you want to read more about it, there's a really great article that breaks down the equity of shoving certain hands given an opponent's 3bet and stackoff ranges. It's in the 2+2 collection I posted a while back in the HUSnG forum.
Hope that helps clear up your question...I didn't follow 100%.
You certainly should never isolate your "medium value category" to just a select few hands. This leaves your range extremely vulnerable, and is a very common leak. I forgot who it was...but there was a video in which...errr...someone good...(just getting lazy now) said that he goes back through his HUD to look at other regs. When he does so, he looks specifically for their JJ and TT hands to see what they do with them. Doing this alone improved his winrate quite a bit.
That's how important it is to protect these hands! They have a lot of value, but are often given their own line by otherwise solid regulars. For example, only flatting a 3bet with these hands. So you are certainly right in what you said.
See above for explanation regarding SCs.
Adjusting is something that never actually stops. Your opponent presents a strategy. You adjust. Your opponent adjusts to your adjustment, and you counter-adjust...etc.
There is always an adjustment to be made for any strategy, because poker is an incomplete puzzle. The best HU players generally excel in this category...knowing their adjustments, but also knowing how people adjust to that and what the next adjustment should be. I have to get rolling to work. TBH, an excel spreadsheet could probably be made which governs these adjustments for you...but that's going a bit too far in freedom of information. And, truth be told, I'm not even close to the best guy to do it.
Hope I answered all questions. Really have to run.
PS. Patent Pending on "0-equity call point".
PPS. Will structure ranges for food or cushy second-job. Willing to relocate.
I am in fact very prone to making mistakes. That's what excel is for.
I know it's been like 3 weeks since the last post, but there's a lot of solid discussion...haven't really been online since black Friday. So sorry for reviving a mostly-dead topic.
If you flat with KQs for example, you need to reinforce with premium hands.
That way when you show up with AA, he'll be way more careful.
HOWEVER, be careful to what that does to your 4betting range. If you include premium hands to your calling range, your premium/air ratio will be skewed towards air when you 4bet and he will blow you off the hand accordingly.
That way when you show up with AA, he'll be way more careful.
HOWEVER, be careful to what that does to your 4betting range. If you include premium hands to your calling range, your premium/air ratio will be skewed towards air when you 4bet and he will blow you off the hand accordingly.
IMHO, the moment we start flatting 3 bets oop with the middle of our range is the moment we stop 4betting a villain. We really want to protect the middle of our range here, and research seems to suggest that flatting with 100% of our continuing range is actually the best way to counter a polarized 3better (at least for a short period of time).
Strangely, I found that few people actually adjusted their 3betting to me once I did that...they just continued 3betting a polarized range when IP, despite the fact that I was never 4betting them. Some people just stopped 3betting, of course. But very few people actually merged their 3betting range in situations where they were originally polarized, and this is generally a very good indication that the adjustment holds at least for a while. What you don't want to see is someone adjust by 3betting hands like AJ, ATs, KQ, SCs, etc. If your opponent re-adjusts and merges this range, you have to again adjust to polarize your 4betting range (folding the middle of your range) and force folds from the middle of his range.
I might have one question though...more of a semantic one
IF we are to include a light stack off range in our 3bets, assuming villain is aggressive enough to 5bet shove a range against which we have 33%+ equity, how can it still be considered polarized? Because to me, the hands we include as our semi bluffs are medium category. It widens our value range just like a merged range.
Or in other words:
A villain 3 betting AQs, TT+ and junk, is he more polarized than merged?
I'd say so (that he's still polarized). I believe it depends on how the villain perceives his premium category to be, what do you think?
Merging becomes clear when he starts using most of the broadways and pocket pairs.
Basically, with a merged 3bet range you are playing 3 sides:
-the air in your range will get money by making the villain fold their weak hands
-the medium category wishes for a call against a hand its dominating (you can't really shove KJs vs a passive's 4bet)
-the premium category of course just wants to get it in...
With that in mind, if we are to stack off light with some medium hands in our polarization, this creates an exception mainly because of stack sizes at 100bb, all the dead money, and the fact that villain has a 1.7% wider range than normal in his premium category (TT+, AQo, AQs) making it break even or slightly profitable to shove 55+.
So in one instance, where its clear we are merged,we still value bet medium hands, but we can't stand a shove and we'll fold. While in the other situation, we basically widen our value range with medium hands that we will shove. Thus creating a polarized range with alot more "nuts" than before in our nuts:air ratio.
Oh by the way, to me, polarization is a form of balance.
Gush this seemed rather incoherent, hopefully, you'll be able to tell me what you think!
IF we are to include a light stack off range in our 3bets, assuming villain is aggressive enough to 5bet shove a range against which we have 33%+ equity, how can it still be considered polarized? Because to me, the hands we include as our semi bluffs are medium category. It widens our value range just like a merged range.
Or in other words:
A villain 3 betting AQs, TT+ and junk, is he more polarized than merged?
I'd say so (that he's still polarized). I believe it depends on how the villain perceives his premium category to be, what do you think?
Merging becomes clear when he starts using most of the broadways and pocket pairs.
Basically, with a merged 3bet range you are playing 3 sides:
-the air in your range will get money by making the villain fold their weak hands
-the medium category wishes for a call against a hand its dominating (you can't really shove KJs vs a passive's 4bet)
-the premium category of course just wants to get it in...
With that in mind, if we are to stack off light with some medium hands in our polarization, this creates an exception mainly because of stack sizes at 100bb, all the dead money, and the fact that villain has a 1.7% wider range than normal in his premium category (TT+, AQo, AQs) making it break even or slightly profitable to shove 55+.
So in one instance, where its clear we are merged,we still value bet medium hands, but we can't stand a shove and we'll fold. While in the other situation, we basically widen our value range with medium hands that we will shove. Thus creating a polarized range with alot more "nuts" than before in our nuts:air ratio.
Oh by the way, to me, polarization is a form of balance.
Gush this seemed rather incoherent, hopefully, you'll be able to tell me what you think!
I think what you're talking about is...a polarized range with a very wide stackoff range? There is a point where polarization and merging can be...a little blurry. And it generally occurs when you are structuring your range incorrectly. A Polarized range can take many forms...because there are two ranges creating it. When you structure a merged range, you're just thinking about how wide a merged range you have. A Polarized range has a stackoff range and an air range, both of which need to be structured according to your opponent.
Here are some random pictures...I dunno, they help me.
A= "Air"
S= "Stackoff range"
Please note that just to the right of the air segment is the theoretical "0-equity call" point, meaning everything to the left of the best air hand is a -EV flat preflop.
A Polarized range structured against someone who folds to 80% of 3bets and 4bets AK, KK and AA. (We have a very tight stackoff range and a ton of air)
------------------------[ A ]-----[S]
A Polarized range structured against someone who folds to 60% of 3bets and 4bets a wide polarized range. (We have added small-mid PPs to our 3bet range, and have eliminated a lot of air from our range)
------------------------[ A ]-------------------[ N ]
A Merged range. (Could include SCs, broadway, etc.)
----------------------------------------------[ S ]
A ridiculously wide range that is actually merged. (3betting everything from air to nuts and in-between)
---------------------[A ][ S1 ][S ]
Obviously, if you are 3betting both junk, the nuts and everything in-between, you are actually 3betting a merged range. This can be okay...if you want to monkey-tilt someone into 4betting every time you 3bet. But you are likely losing value from the S1 category, and A will become -EV very quickly as your opponent adjusts. Most people will just tighten their opening range extremely and 4bet nearly 100% if you start 3betting this range. So if you do this, it's obvious that it should ebb and flow. This is pretty close to what you could 3bet profitably in 2007 (I think...).
So when you 3bet a hand like 66, you are adding it to "S". You are doing this because you believe there to be a significant gap between your opponent's 4bet and stackoff range, or because your opponent is 4betting certain hands he shouldn't be (JT, KJ, etc.), or because your opponent is stacking off with hands he shouldn't (A2...pretty much).
And stacking off with SC is NOT a part of a polarized or merged strategy generally, but there are situations where it is very good. Basically think about it this way...
- If your bet is committing, you can't fold and thus can't polarize.
- There are only so many hands you can put into a merged range.
Shoving with SC is good when:
- Your opponent is raising with a very wide merged range, or a very air-heavy value range.
- Your opponent's stackoff range is extremely tight (KK, AA, AK, for example).
Thus, shoving with 9Ts is going to show pretty similar equity results as small- mid pocket pairs. Further, all of these hands are showing pretty similar equity results as QQ. If we could polarize, we would love to re-reraise with Ax hands in a polarized range, because it knocks out a ton of your opponent's combos of nuts. Because we can't do that, we want to re-raise with our highest-equity hands. When we do so, we re-raise all-in only.
If you watch some HU SnG training vids, you'll see some instances where it's okay. There are other situations at a FR table where it's okay, but they are certainly rare (I think I did it twice in the past 100k hands...). As a FR player, this is likely something you can just forget about. But if you want to read more about it, there's a really great article that breaks down the equity of shoving certain hands given an opponent's 3bet and stackoff ranges. It's in the 2+2 collection I posted a while back in the HUSnG forum.
Hope that helps clear up your question...I didn't follow 100%.
This makes me think of the Dimnishing medium value category...
in that spot, what you can consider medium value (in the whole spectrum vs that same spectrum) can be limited to TT, MAYBE JJ, and AQs. if you flat with these and have a 4bet polarized range, its pretty easy to counter it.
so it comes a time vs a certain player, or when the dynamic is right, where you just include these hands into your polarized range as the "stack off" portion, thus adding some nuts to your nuts:air ratio.. . thus DIMNISHING your medium value category or in this case, removing it completely
This is when people will react by adding PPs to their shoving range with their own polarized range. Since PPs have like 30-35% equity vs TT+, AQs+. IM NOT SURE i'd ever include, SCs, though..i'd much rather always flat those, so I'm not sure why you mentioned somewhere you would stack off with Suited connectors ...as it seems like a gamble and i wouldnt 3bet most SCs vs a polarized range in the first place (i might have misread)
If both players adjust and eventually play the same range, what is the next step? I think then you have to flat all of your range until he makes an over adjustment. but thats in a perfect world...
in that spot, what you can consider medium value (in the whole spectrum vs that same spectrum) can be limited to TT, MAYBE JJ, and AQs. if you flat with these and have a 4bet polarized range, its pretty easy to counter it.
so it comes a time vs a certain player, or when the dynamic is right, where you just include these hands into your polarized range as the "stack off" portion, thus adding some nuts to your nuts:air ratio.. . thus DIMNISHING your medium value category or in this case, removing it completely
This is when people will react by adding PPs to their shoving range with their own polarized range. Since PPs have like 30-35% equity vs TT+, AQs+. IM NOT SURE i'd ever include, SCs, though..i'd much rather always flat those, so I'm not sure why you mentioned somewhere you would stack off with Suited connectors ...as it seems like a gamble and i wouldnt 3bet most SCs vs a polarized range in the first place (i might have misread)
If both players adjust and eventually play the same range, what is the next step? I think then you have to flat all of your range until he makes an over adjustment. but thats in a perfect world...
That's how important it is to protect these hands! They have a lot of value, but are often given their own line by otherwise solid regulars. For example, only flatting a 3bet with these hands. So you are certainly right in what you said.
See above for explanation regarding SCs.
Adjusting is something that never actually stops. Your opponent presents a strategy. You adjust. Your opponent adjusts to your adjustment, and you counter-adjust...etc.
There is always an adjustment to be made for any strategy, because poker is an incomplete puzzle. The best HU players generally excel in this category...knowing their adjustments, but also knowing how people adjust to that and what the next adjustment should be. I have to get rolling to work. TBH, an excel spreadsheet could probably be made which governs these adjustments for you...but that's going a bit too far in freedom of information. And, truth be told, I'm not even close to the best guy to do it.
Hope I answered all questions. Really have to run.
PS. Patent Pending on "0-equity call point".
PPS. Will structure ranges for food or cushy second-job. Willing to relocate.
ty very much for this excellent article..I am trying to improve my preflop 3b/4b and i was googling for various articles on this topic and now i come across this article.I guess i will have to read this atleast 5 times to get a basic idea and then keep using pokerstove to fully understand this.Thanks a lot.
I started out by polarizing all my 3bet ranges, then gradually merged my default OOP 3bet range. But my motivation had to do with non 3bet pots. I thought I would not be able to do much with certain hands if I flat out of the blinds, like suited broadways, as good as they are. Suited broadways like to donk bet bluff when they miss, and what better way to donk bet bluff than to cbet after 3betting.
One bad thing is you'll end up with non TPTK's or high middle pairs that can't just bet three streets. But as you say, it's not really a downside if you can expect people to call/float you wide enough.
One bad thing is you'll end up with non TPTK's or high middle pairs that can't just bet three streets. But as you say, it's not really a downside if you can expect people to call/float you wide enough.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE