3bet Sizing in WSOP events - MTT Poker Strategy - Multi Table Tournament Poker Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy No Limit Tournaments

3bet Sizing in WSOP events

Post Reply Subscribe

...

07-24-2017 , 11:10 AM

Gj Gj

centurion

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 100

Hey, just got back from Vegas, played a few WSOP events and kept noticing that in pretty much all of them, most players (didn't end up playing any well known top-pros) 3bet to almost exactly 3x both IP and OOP at all stages of the tournament.

I'm very used to a general 3bet size of ~2.5x IP and ~3.5x OOP. Of course like always, it depends, but this is the basic sizing guideline I follow and see a lot online.

Seems pretty bad to just have it on auto 3x regardless of position, any thoughts on this?

Quote

07-24-2017 , 01:13 PM

likes

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 374

Large field WSOP events are filled with players who do not consider position when evaluating their own direct actions so it stands to reason that they are unaware of a 3-bettor's position and how it might affect sizing. Therefore, it may be that in an effort to appear balanced in the eyes of these weak players betting the same both in and out of position gives a perception of balance. When playing large field WSOP events, it is important to avoid overestimating the poker acumen of much of the field as that will get you in more trouble than you bargained for.

Quote

07-26-2017 , 03:15 AM

RalphWaldoEmerson

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 5,954

MTT sizing is just ******ed across the board, in every spot, IP, OOP, nobody has any idea wtf they're doing, live, online, whatever

Quote

07-26-2017 , 02:07 PM

erc007

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,227

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphWaldoEmerson

MTT sizing is just ******ed across the board, in every spot, IP, OOP, nobody has any idea wtf they're doing, live, online, whatever

Hey...I know u r young but we (MTT tards) were minopening/opening to small sizings long before you cash plyrs...so a little credit pls

Oh wait...we did it bc of stacksize constraints...uh...well we did it 1st nonetheless

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...