I somewhat disagree with this.

Assuming we are talking about 3b bluffing some hands that are def +EV calls, but "play better as 3bets"

When you 3b BBvBtn it's reasonable that Btn folds something like 50-55%. So every time Btn folds, you have just wasted the +EV call spot you could've made as you would've gotten the same result by 3betting 72o than lets say A5s. We get to the same conclusion when V 4bets us with something like 10%, as we are still folding and 3betting 72o we would've ended up in the exact same result (discounting blocker effect as it's marginal with these wide ranges).

So the actual hand we are 3betting only matters when the 3b is called which in this scenario happens only 25-30% time. So to justify 3betting hands that are +EV calls they need to be around 3-4x more profitable when 3bet AND CALLED compared to flatting the steal. By looking into some equity calculations with different R factors the results can be somewhat surprising and have very contradicting effect against some commonly accepted 3b bluff ranges.

Arjen you are amazing. You think on a level much higher than most players and for that you deserve more respect

This does not compute. Aces and kings don't even double their EV by 3-betting, so does that mean we should always flat with them? (Flatting AA nets about 7bb on average, 3-betting wins about 12bb, given optimal calling, 4-betting and post-flop play by villain).

We should always 3-bet a hand if it increases the EV in comparison to calling, whether it's by 5bb, or by 0.01bb, because game theory requires taking the most profitable line.
The EV difference between flatting and 3-betting hands like AJs, A5s, QJs is likely to be very small, but it exists. Calling a 3x with AJs might have an expectation of +1.41bb but if 3-betting has an expectation of +1.43bb, then that's the action we should take, since it makes more money in the long run.
Hands like AJo or A3s will be closer to breakeven (like +0.3bb as a 3-bet or call) and could be integrated into a mixed strategy.
The bottom of our 3-betting range will be a hand that is neutral EV as a 3-bet, and probably negative or breakeven EV as a call. It will be something like A4o or T9o. These could be occasional 3-bets.
A hand like 72o has a negative expectation whether we call (about -0.85bb) or 3-bet (-1.16bb), so we should just fold it every single time.

By 3-betting hands that maximise EV by 3-betting, calling with hands that maximise EV by calling, and folding hands that lose money whether they 3-bet or call, we arrive at an optimal range.
This range won't look much like the one in Janda's book, but Janda got blind defence pretty badly wrong.

Ultimately, a GTO resteal range will look remarkably similar to an UTG opening range. We should 3-bet the same sort for hands for the same sort of reasons: We'll be OOP post-flop, but we have blockers, and decent equity/playability against everything that calls. 3-betting wider would put us at a range/equity disadvantage against villain's c-range, so it can't be optimal.

I was referring to situation where we are 3bet-folding.

I have to think about this a little more, but I'm currently leaning to the side that the definition of GTO by Janda (game theory requires taking the most profitable line in vacuum) is somewhat flawed.

Against real world opponents, it's hard to measure whether 3-betting or calling is better for anything but the obvious QQ+/AK, because it's impossible to get a decent enough sample size such that you can find out the average EV of each option for each hand in your range.

It hurts to 3-bet/fold a hand as pretty as AJs, but against my typical opponents (who call 3-bets with worse, and don't 4-bet bluff), it's got to be correct.
Against GTO opponents, the play apparently gets super weird. Vs a 25bb 4-bet, the BB should have an OOP flatting range (something like QQ-88/ATs+/AK). Flatting a 4-bet and then check-folding about 50% of flops when the SPR is 1.5 just looks/feels "wrong", although it's probably right theoretically.

Janda's been pretty good at admitting that much of his book was his "best guess" of what GTO might look like when he wrote it. He was ahead of his time, but it has to be said that when OTB-Redbaron read the book, he basically lolled, because the book does not describe GTO play.
I've written elsewhere (especially in the Ed Miller thread) why the frequency-based approximation popularized by Janda is flawed. All that "one minus alpha" stuff is kind of interesting and a useful way to introduce the concepts of "unexploitability" and "balance" to the uninitiated (it really helped me understand poker on a deeper level), but it has very little to do with true GTO. Poker is not the AKQ game. It's a multi-street game with hundreds of combos which have equities that change dynamically according to the board texture and action. You can't solve it with one equation.

It's kind of unfortunate that Janda admits he got the pre-flop ranges "wrong" in his book, as I think that's the section that most readers study the closest. :/

It's +EV to call with AA, doesn't make it higher EV than raising though, and so we raise...

Where is the post where OTB-Redbaron talks about the lols in Janda's book?

its in jandas thread on 2p2, page like 2 I think if you have 100 pages on. read the whole thread tho if you liked applications its very good.

See RedBaron's PG&C thread about destroying 500NL zoom: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=783
It's still a very good book, imo, but some of the theory is quite wrong, and the typos and math errors are quite annoying. I suppose Alex Sutherland (the guy behind GTO Rangebuilder) is a coach that's closer to the cutting edge right now.

Note: All of this stuff is kind of beyond the scope of BQ. At 10NL, nothing more than a vague understanding of what blockers are or what 'balance' means is really necessary, and it could harm your microstakes winrate if you start obsessing about "theoretically correct" play, like I often do.

postlop on a J high flop when you hold KQ you block KJ, QJ and then say a K comes on turn, now KJ is less likey as well so he probably doesn't have the Jack he was repping, things of that nature.

Learning about it at the microstakes is actually a good thing in my opinion. Otherwise, you are going to have a very difficult time changing your game so significantly later on.

The idea is this: learn about GTO and understand when to deviate from it. This applies to all levels of poker and is something people do without knowing it. Learning it, adapting to it, and implementing it will provide you with a significant advantage now and in the future.

in addition but sometimes vs fish I just get a feeling and make a very theoretically bad call/fold from 1000s of hours of xp. I think that vs regs and when you are multitabling alot knowing a bit of theory goes a long way tho

Sorry to bump an old post but just wanted to attest that Arty's advice to unpolarize 3bet ranges oop is both GTO (most likely) and good even at lower stakes (usually).

About GTO play preflop, it's very easy to determine what are the GTO frequencies (for 3 bet/4bets, 5bet shoves, based on % first raise of open raiser), but much harder to determine what is the optimal range to fill these %. Yet one thing is clear : the player at BTN has to call the 3 bet a lot (at least as often as he 4bets, probably slightly more). A "4 bet or fold" strategy is really desastrous ev-wise, and allows the BB to 3 bet profitably wth a much higher frequency than against a player who has a calling range (and a calling range at least as large as his 4 betting range).

Against a reg opening 50% at btn, GTO dicts to 3bet "value" (ie 3 bet and 5 bet shove) AJ+ and 99+, with an added 60% 3 bet "bluffs" (ie folding to a 4 bet or possibly calling occasionally, but not shoving). While BTN optimal 4 bet value range should be AQ+ and JJ+, with about 50% bluffs.
In practice in very low stakes, regs who do open 50%+ at btn don't 4 bet value thin enough (they don't 4bet call AQ and JJ), unless you got a lot of history. But they do call a decent amount of time ip, so you should have somewhat unpolarized ranges as a default.
In particular you need KQ in your range. Besides 2 blockers, it reinforces your range on Kxx board (with 16% 3 bet, AK+ and AA and sets would be a very small amount of combo of strong value, while BTN callling range should have dominated kings like KJs/KQo and possibly KTs. Makes it a very profitable hand to 3 bet (much more profit than by cold calling it oop, especially offsuit).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing you can find here an example of decent 3 bet range. Of course if your opponents don't call 3 bet enough, then feel free to polarize more and to call call KQ/KJs and suited connectors.

In micro and against many regs in low stakes, of course, don't stack off AJ-99-TT against most regs who won't 4 bet enough. You should still 3 bet AJ though, as long as they call 3bets often enough (for the same reasons as you should 3 bet KQ, blockers+dominates the calling range). You can 5 bet shove them if they 4bet bluff a lot, even if they're unbalanced (too much 4 bet bluffs and calling only AK/QQ or AK/JJ). You usually manage to have a clue if the opponent 4 bets a lot or not but you're rarely be able to figure out if he's correctly balancing, so using GTO ranges is ok (even if he 4 bets tighter than it seems and just runs good, it won't be a huge mistake - at least it'll be better than not 3 betting often enough or than being too unbalanced value/bluff if they do 4 bet GTO). Polarize your 3 bet range in the blinds only if you're 100% sure that they fold too much ip (ie even a reg with 70+% fold to 3 bet overall might be folding only 55% or 60% BTN vs BB - and probably even less against you as you probably will 3 bet him more often than the other players do) - and if you do polarize, of course use blockers. You can also polarize a bit if they play too fit or fold post flop and fold too much to cbet on most flops (that will be the case more often I guess). In that case you can for instance replace the small suited connectors by suited one gappers or 2 gappers, and add some more Axo or Kxs to replace KQ/AJ/99/TT.

About 3 bets ip I have no idea if this still applies on a GTO pov. Obv I just play exploitatively in low stakes for the most part so I'll polarize a lot and use blockers unless the opponent calls a lot oop (which is rare for regs).

If you're interested in figuring out how to determine 3 bet GTO frequencies, here is the vid for which I had done the work, but it's in french alas.. https://vimeo.com/groups/231885/videos/87242064. There were a few mistakes in it, but overall conclusions were ok.

I am wondering if this thread is only pertaining to pre flop or just blockers in general? I will give my take though on pre flop and then post flop blockers. I do think blockers are over rated 100% and should not be the reason you are making a play or even factor in to that fact over 90% of the time, yet i still hear it being thrown around like no tomorrow. K7s is a great 3B hand if your opponent folds to much and will 4B oop more then he will call. Axs is good for seeing flops with in 3B pots because of the equity it will retain on many flops and i think it is a terrible idea to 3B it oop when a reg is going to call you a lot with dominated hands. If he is competent he will float you and 1 and done will not cut it.

Post flop i find that there are a few very good spots with blockers and they work best for bluff catching as i have done a lot of the work as of late to debunk the blockers situations. There are so many spots where blockers do not matter (most spots). I see huge mistakes in using that reasoning among most guys even winners and many time a blocker is not more valuable because of the blocker and is actually more valuable because it has hidden equity against someones range. It is a weird thing to talk about so i will not highlight spots from what i am talking about. The answer behind your question is anyone using blockers with success and i can say after doing countless hours of work off the table i am doing it with success. The major difference is that people are saying blockers and i go and look at the sot under a microscope then change around variables and realize they don't know what they are talking about. with that exact hand and sometimes can come up with the right answer for the wrong reasons on how to play a hand. when in reality there was other hands i found that brought my equity 10% higher and was wondering wait i block his bluffs and why must this be. Then BOOM i would figure out the answer. GL on finding out the spots