I have realized that this is a part of the game I should really put a lot of work into. Being faced with a raise, when you have a hand you want to play happens very frequently but it is a leak of mine. I am rarely sure what the best play is when I hold stuff like AQ, KQ, AJ, TT.
Usually I end up calling because it makes things more comfortable. But I loose money in these spots.
Unfortunately it is a huge topic and a lot of things to consider.
As I play nl5, the pool of players is huge and there are only a few opponents I have a lot of hands on, so naturally I want to create a general strategy from which I can make small adjustments when I do have a read.

One thing that confuses me is this: If I am involved in a big pot, I want position on my opponent. So 3betting should be better from CO/BTN. But "general advise" says that one should be more inclined to 3bet OOP than IP because your hand does not play as well OOP. If that is true then we are only 3betting to make our opponent fold, or is a 3bet better because we create a lower SPR?

One more confusing thing: If my AQ or KQ is suited. Should that make me more inclined to 3bet or call?

If opponent is playing poorly. Do we want to 3bet with hands like AQ and TT because we play a bigger pot vs a fish, or do we rather call because higher SPR creates a situation where we have a bigger edge post flop?

No luck yet. I guess the OP is too wide so I am now posting a more specific question.
I am at the moment actively searching for good spots to 3bet because it is a part of the game I want to improve.
I want to know if my reasons for 3betting this hand is correct:
Villain is loose and should therefore fold a lot of his hands, also with the Ace I block some of the hands that can call.
My hand does not flop very well and I will often just have to fold to a Cbet if I call.
Since I have position and the initiative, being called with a suited Ace is not the end of the world?
Since I don't 3bet enough, this is a pretty good spot to increase my 3bet frequency?

PokerStars - $0.02 NL - Holdem - 8 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

SB: 106 BB (VPIP: 23.68, PFR: 18.42, 3Bet Preflop: 2.22, Hands: 114)
BB: 210 BB (VPIP: 18.29, PFR: 11.53, 3Bet Preflop: 4.02, Hands: 508)
UTG: 80 BB (VPIP: 29.41, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 34)
UTG+1: 97.5 BB (VPIP: 7.41, PFR: 1.85, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 109)
MP: 190.5 BB (VPIP: 2.27, PFR: 2.27, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 44)
MP+1: 158 BB (VPIP: 32.26, PFR: 29.03, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 33)
CO: 99.5 BB (VPIP: 8.33, PFR: 8.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 38)
Hero (BTN): 100 BB

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has 6 A

fold, fold, fold, MP+1 raises to 3 BB, fold, Hero raises to 9 BB, fold, fold, fold

Hero wins 7.5 BB

I've replied to your post point by point. It's very opinionated but should help a little.

Wanting to play a hand is not a reason to call. The reason you want to call strong hands is to stop someone 3-betting you too light, which doesn’t happen often enough to call too much. A general winning strategy at this stake is to avoid signs of strength and attack weakness. Play post-flop isn’t that much different but the range you each hold is narrower and the stacks shorter.
How are you loosing though?
Do you think you’re calling/folding too much?
Are you not folding to re-raises enough?
What’s your thought process like when on a 3-bet pot? Overvaluing top pair/calling bets without a hand. Thinking in only in extremes, AA or bluff?

A general starting strategy: be exploitable and fold
Without info on a player I’ll pretty much fold most things when facing a 3-bet. Again, avoid strength. After an hour play with them I’ll know if they are 3-betting too much and so I’ll be happier calling. If I think they are too skewed to AA, KK (after 500+ hands) I’ll call pairs to set mine.

Slightly lost on the point you’re making. If you are OOP pre-flop there are more players to act behind you so you’re 3-betting range needs to be narrower. It’s more likely with players to act that you could face a 4-bet. The second point is essentially asking why you should 3-bet.

You 3-bet to get value from your best hands and to fold out weaker hands. This means your range can be AA,KK, A5s or if wider AA-QQ, AK, A5-A2s T9s, 87s i.e a mix of strong hands and weak hands which together you punish weak ranges that either have to call with too weak a set of hands or rightly often fold to minimise the error of playing too many hands. This point is important. You are giving them no winning out if they play too many hands.

KQ unsuited is junk – fold it. Yes. I said junk. Only call a standard raise in late position. With a 3-bet it holds no water.
AQo is a fold against anyone but loose weak player, AQs is a call.

Even against weak players I wouldn’t 3-bet TT for value unless it’s blind vs blind or they are betting everything almost every hand.
Do you even know what bigger edge post flop means? I’ve heard the phrase a lot but it never actually seems to mean much.

Meh, A6s vs A7s. Not much difference. Provided you’re thinking along the lines of “I would 3-bet JJ the same way for value” and thinking of a range like JJ+, AK, A6-A2s, T9s, 87s, 54s with a nice mix of value and bluffs rather than JJ+, AK, AXs, KQ, JT-56s… and basically finding spots too much with bluff hands and not being disciplined to keep the frequencies you have a hand for value with a hand good for bluffing in balance.

Don't know how to make several quotes from one post like you did. Hope this does not get messy.

I've replied to your post point by point. It's very opinionated but should help a little.

All I am asking for is opinions. I listen, try and evaluate. So thanks a lot for a long post!

Wanting to play a hand is not a reason to call. The reason you want to call strong hands is to stop someone 3-betting you too light, which doesn’t happen often enough to call too much. A general winning strategy at this stake is to avoid signs of strength and attack weakness. Play post-flop isn’t that much different but the range you each hold is narrower and the stacks shorter.

Well, I would think the reason to call is because calling makes more money in the long run than raising or folding. But I get your point. "I like this hand and I want to play it" is the thought of someone who started playing yesterday.

How are you loosing though?
Do you think you’re calling/folding too much?
Are you not folding to re-raises enough?
What’s your thought process like when on a 3-bet pot? Overvaluing top pair/calling bets without a hand. Thinking in only in extremes, AA or bluff?


I know I am loosing because in Pokertracker I can see what my results are when someone else has opened the pot before me. I do not fold too much because I stay away from trouble hands except when a terrible player opens the pot I might call with hands like KJ and QT, also call wider when villain opens to 2x. But in general I don't fold to much.
If I am calling too much, it is because I don't 3bet enough. And this is exactly what I want to improve.
I fold a lot to 3bets. I have a HUD and most players 3bet like 1-3%. AQ for example, even when suited, is always a fold for me. Unless villains 3bet is really small obv.
I believe the reason I am loosing is because I call hands like ATs, AQ, KQ, T9s etc in position and then fold to a Cbet. I don't like to float at these stakes because many opponents give up after the Cbet so I don't make money if I hit my overcards.

A general starting strategy: be exploitable and fold
Without info on a player I’ll pretty much fold most things when facing a 3-bet. Again, avoid strength. After an hour play with them I’ll know if they are 3-betting too much and so I’ll be happier calling. If I think they are too skewed to AA, KK (after 500+ hands) I’ll call pairs to set mine.

The only hand I really don't know how to play when faced with a 3bet is AK. As an example I recently opened with AKo UTG and a nit from the BTN 3bets. I had 300 hands on him and his PFR was like 4 and 3betting 0. I can never 4bet this guy but folding AK to a 3bet seems soooooo weak. As you can understand I called and missed the flop, folded to the Cbet.

Slightly lost on the point you’re making. If you are OOP pre-flop there are more players to act behind you so you’re 3-betting range needs to be narrower. It’s more likely with players to act that you could face a 4-bet. The second point is essentially asking why you should 3-bet.

You 3-bet to get value from your best hands and to fold out weaker hands. This means your range can be AA,KK, A5s or if wider AA-QQ, AK, A5-A2s T9s, 87s i.e a mix of strong hands and weak hands which together you punish weak ranges that either have to call with too weak a set of hands or rightly often fold to minimise the error of playing too many hands. This point is important. You are giving them no winning out if they play too many hands.


Why would I want weaker hands to fold? Let's say I have AK and I know my opponent has KQ. Why would I want him to fold?
But you are talking about a polarized range here. Do you think that is a great strategy in the micros? I definitely believe in balance and a polarized 3betting range is a must even at small stakes imo. But playing against the worst of the worst I would believe that 99 is a better hand to 3bet than 87s. But please correct me if I am wrong.

KQ unsuited is junk – fold it. Yes. I said junk. Only call a standard raise in late position. With a 3-bet it holds no water.
AQo is a fold against anyone but loose weak player, AQs is a call.


Am I wrong if I believe you think the best play is to 3bet polarized and pretty much never call preflop? I mean I am very tight when EP opens but if Lo/Hijack opens I like to see flops with hands like KQ, ATs, JTs etc. Am I crazy? Only call with medium pairs or something?

Even against weak players I wouldn’t 3-bet TT for value unless it’s blind vs blind or they are betting everything almost every hand.
Do you even know what bigger edge post flop means? I’ve heard the phrase a lot but it never actually seems to mean much.

I guess what I mean by having an edge post flop against most players is that I lose less money with marginal hands and I extract more value with strong hands. Am also more capable of folding semi strong hands to unusual aggression.

Meh, A6s vs A7s. Not much difference. Provided you’re thinking along the lines of “I would 3-bet JJ the same way for value” and thinking of a range like JJ+, AK, A6-A2s, T9s, 87s, 54s with a nice mix of value and bluffs rather than JJ+, AK, AXs, KQ, JT-56s… and basically finding spots too much with bluff hands and not being disciplined to keep the frequencies you have a hand for value with a hand good for bluffing in balance.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this last piece

Hey guys.

You've touched a lot of interesting topics and for some of them there isn't a silver bullet strategy that fits every scenario. Obviously, a lot is opponent/position/ranges dependent.

I'll try to summarise my view on the main points.


Definitely, the reason to call is always because it makes more money in the long run.
I don't quite agree with "calling to stop someone 3-betting light". It seems like a good way to lose money to go into a flop without the initiative.

In the original post, the question was around calling a pre-flop bet rather than dealing with 3-bets so I'll tackle that first.

Generally speaking when deciding what to do with a hand like AJ, KQ, QJ, T9 (and note these are all pretty different hands) when you are not the first to open with a raise, you need to consider the action before you. Who opened and from where? Assuming no one else has called the original bet, because that changes things quite a bit in terms of odds, these are my thoughts.

If the UTG player opened it is rarely a good idea to call with any of those hands because the UTG range is so strong that it pretty much crushes these hands. On the other hand, if you are on the button and the CO was the one to open, you can feel more comfortable calling (or 3-betting) because their range is wider.

The other "problem hands" mentioned originally were TT and AQ. Again, I think each hand plays slightly differently. For example, if a tight nit opened from EP it wouldn't make much sense to 3-bet with TT because this hand does badly vs a 4-bet. It also does pretty badly vs their range which is most likely TT+ and AK. Nevertheless, TT is too strong to fold without any more info so you could call with the intention to set mine and/or to see how the play develops. Basically, you'll most likely only be doing well vs AK. For this very reason, folding AQ here is a good idea.

My main idea at these stakes is to avoid difficult situations unless we have a solid read to help deal with them.

A few different things here. It's great that you've identified that you could be calling too much. That gives you something to work on. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that the root cause is that you are not 3-betting enough. In fact, it could mean that you are not folding enough.

At these stakes, you could be making a 0 EV decision if you fold a hand like QT when facing a raise. And even if it is a mistake (-EV) because you had the best hand, it will be negligible in the long run. On the other hand, you could be making a much bigger mistake if you 3-bet it and get called/raised. This is because you will then be in a pot with an average hand where you will either have to have the best hand or will have to invest more chips to force the opponent out. If you are playing against opponents who can fold, maybe this is fine, but generally you are not. And even if they can fold, what if they float your c-bet? Do you fire a second barrel? Sounds like a non-profitable situation to me.

Having said all of this, there's nothing wrong with still wanting to work on your 3-bets. A good spot to begin in my opinion is 3-betting from the BB when you are facing a LP raise and everyone else has folded. When you see Villain has been doing this a lot try experimenting, sometimes, a 3-bet with a non-premium hand like Ax suited. These are nice hands to do it with because if you get 4-bet it's an easy fold AND they have the A blocker making it less likely that Villain has an A.

As for folding a lot to c-bets, in some cases with certain hands and against opponents who you reliably know c-bet way too much you can float the c-bet. It's not easy to do and this works a lot better in position because if Villain gives up on the turn you can often steal the pot with any two cards. Very Villain dependent though so save it for Villains who can fold and c-bet too much.


Agree that folding most of the time is the correct play. If they are 3-betting light, maybe 4-betting light makes sense too rather than calling because then you either make them fold or you seize initiative. Calling in position could be fine too. Calling OOP is horrible more often than not.

Nothing wrong with folding AK against a nit like that when playing out of position. For me this hand is entirely position dependent when facing a raise. Even in position against that same player, I'd probably lean more towards calling rather than raising given the likelihood of facing a big pair who will re-raise.

I think he meant folding out weak hands in general when we are also holding a weak hand. As in, if you 3-bet a LP raise with A6s from the BB, what you are looking for is a fold. On the other hand, if you 3-bet AK in the same spot, you are looking for value (not a fold).

If you have AK and your opponent has KQ, like you mentioned, you do NOT want them to fold. That is actually a good argument against 3-betting altogether because you would rather win a possibly huge pot rather than kick them out pre. This is why it is not bad to call a LP raise from the BB when you are holding AJ, AQ, KQ. You will often dominate.

I agree regarding KQ but slightly disagree regarding AQo/AQs. These hands have almost the same equity. The main difference is the suited version is more "playable" because you add the flush possibility. Facing a raise, I don't think suited vs offsuit is the deciding factor. The deciding factor could be more around your position, the opponent's stats, stack sizes, number of callers, etc.

Hmmm.. I think you may be losing value here and putting yourself in bad spots. Just flatting an EP raise is fine especially if they are nits but always flatting will mean that you'll often create multi-way pots because you know how it works "one call invites other calls". In that scenario you'll pretty much always be looking to hit a set. Whereas if you raised in general, you would most likely play heads up, have the initiative AND get value from worse hands. If you get 4-bet you can usually safely fold because Villains will rarely be 4-betting you light.

God I wish I knew how to write like you both did with a lot of smaller quotes. Because the way I did it is a mess. But it will work for now until I learn.

Hey guys.

You've touched a lot of interesting topics and for some of them there isn't a silver bullet strategy that fits every scenario. Obviously, a lot is opponent/position/ranges dependent.

I'll try to summarise my view on the main points.

Definitely, the reason to call is always because it makes more money in the long run.
I don't quite agree with "calling to stop someone 3-betting light". It seems like a good way to lose money to go into a flop without the initiative.

In the original post, the question was around calling a pre-flop bet rather than dealing with 3-bets so I'll tackle that first.


The intention was to talk about dealing with a preflop raise. When to call and when to 3bet. Atm I am trying to make a list of "Reasons to call preflop" and "Reasons to 3bet preflop"

Generally speaking when deciding what to do with a hand like AJ, KQ, QJ, T9 (and note these are all pretty different hands) when you are not the first to open with a raise, you need to consider the action before you. Who opened and from where? Assuming no one else has called the original bet, because that changes things quite a bit in terms of odds, these are my thoughts.

If the UTG player opened it is rarely a good idea to call with any of those hands because the UTG range is so strong that it pretty much crushes these hands. On the other hand, if you are on the button and the CO was the one to open, you can feel more comfortable calling (or 3-betting) because their range is wider.


I agree! Now all that is left is learning when to do what haha.

The other "problem hands" mentioned originally were TT and AQ. Again, I think each hand plays slightly differently. For example, if a tight nit opened from EP it wouldn't make much sense to 3-bet with TT because this hand does badly vs a 4-bet. It also does pretty badly vs their range which is most likely TT+ and AK. Nevertheless, TT is too strong to fold without any more info so you could call with the intention to set mine and/or to see how the play develops. Basically, you'll most likely only be doing well vs AK. For this very reason, folding AQ here is a good idea.

I like this and agree completely.

My main idea at these stakes is to avoid difficult situations unless we have a solid read to help deal with them.

A few different things here. It's great that you've identified that you could be calling too much. That gives you something to work on. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that the root cause is that you are not 3-betting enough. In fact, it could mean that you are not folding enough.

It does not necessarily, but in my case it does because I know I don't 3bet enough. On the other hand it could also mean I am not folding enough. I guess the obvious answer is to often 3bet or fold, and make calling the least attractive option. But I am not so comfortable with that either. Like I said earlier, if a bad loose player opens from the hijack I am happy to call with two big cards, especially suited. I would hate to 3bet them, like JTs, KJs, because they rely too much on fold equity. But I would also hate to fold them because a bad loose player can really be profitable to confront.

At these stakes, you could be making a 0 EV decision if you fold a hand like QT when facing a raise. And even if it is a mistake (-EV) because you had the best hand, it will be negligible in the long run. On the other hand, you could be making a much bigger mistake if you 3-bet it and get called/raised. This is because you will then be in a pot with an average hand where you will either have to have the best hand or will have to invest more chips to force the opponent out. If you are playing against opponents who can fold, maybe this is fine, but generally you are not. And even if they can fold, what if they float your c-bet? Do you fire a second barrel? Sounds like a non-profitable situation to me.

Yeah I can think of a ton of hands I rather use to 3bet wide with than QT

Having said all of this, there's nothing wrong with still wanting to work on your 3-bets. A good spot to begin in my opinion is 3-betting from the BB when you are facing a LP raise and everyone else has folded. When you see Villain has been doing this a lot try experimenting, sometimes, a 3-bet with a non-premium hand like Ax suited. These are nice hands to do it with because if you get 4-bet it's an easy fold AND they have the A blocker making it less likely that Villain has an A.


I do like this idea. I kind of want to do it with small pockets as well because OOP it becomes a check-fold on the flop like 90% of the times. It plays poorly but might be strong enough to 3bet. What do you think? All though with 66-88 I probably call because these hands can more often call a Cbet.

As for folding a lot to c-bets, in some cases with certain hands and against opponents who you reliably know c-bet way too much you can float the c-bet. It's not easy to do and this works a lot better in position because if Villain gives up on the turn you can often steal the pot with any two cards. Very Villain dependent though so save it for Villains who can fold and c-bet too much.

Agree that folding most of the time is the correct play. If they are 3-betting light, maybe 4-betting light makes sense too rather than calling because then you either make them fold or you seize initiative. Calling in position could be fine too. Calling OOP is horrible more often than not.

A somewhat polarized 4bet/5bet strategy is definitely something to work on as I advance in stakes. But I think light 4betting at the lowest stakes is really unnecessary. Could be wrong though.

Nothing wrong with folding AK against a nit like that when playing out of position. For me this hand is entirely position dependent when facing a raise. Even in position against that same player, I'd probably lean more towards calling rather than raising given the likelihood of facing a big pair who will re-raise.


Thanks, I needed to hear that it's not wrong to fold in that spot hahah


I think he meant folding out weak hands in general when we are also holding a weak hand. As in, if you 3-bet a LP raise with A6s from the BB, what you are looking for is a fold. On the other hand, if you 3-bet AK in the same spot, you are looking for value (not a fold).


Yeah okey that makes sense of course.

If you have AK and your opponent has KQ, like you mentioned, you do NOT want them to fold. That is actually a good argument against 3-betting altogether because you would rather win a possibly huge pot rather than kick them out pre. This is why it is not bad to call a LP raise from the BB when you are holding AJ, AQ, KQ. You will often dominate.


I was thinking about this. Including a lot of strong hands in my call range. Let's say a tight (not a complete nit) player opens from the Hijack. I'm on the BTN with TT-QQ, KQs, AJ-AK. A call with these hands keeps his range wider and I can make more money. 3betting JJ and AJ against a tight player would probably end up with a 4bet or fold. And I don't like any of that. Instead seeing a flop in position with high SPR should be the best option?
-----
So like I said earlier I am making a list of "Reasons to call and 3bet preflop"
What do you say about these reasons to call:
Villain opens wide but folds to a lot of 3bets. Therefore calling with a lot of strong hands like QQ and AQ should make more money than just 3betting and often taking the 3bb villain put in.
Villain is tight and might not like to fold a lot of his range vs a 3bet so calling with suited connectors and medium pairs is better than 3betting. Also these hands are pretty easy to play against his tight range. This is however a spot where KQ and AT should be folded.

And reasons to 3bet:
Villain is neither too loose or tight. He folds to a lot of 3bets so low suited aces and suited connectors are excellent to 3bet.
Villain is a fish who opens wide and calls wide. TT-QQ, AQ+ and KQs can be a part of a wider 3bet range for value?

My bad, should have typed stronger (though marginal hands).

Nope, I did not mean this.

I think having a polarized 3-betting range is still effective at micros. You get value from your weaker hands, players see you turning up with a random hands so they over adjust and call you down when you have premium hands.

The question around 3-betting things like 99, TT for value...this would suggest you plan to have a wide 3-betting strategy where you only hold value hands with occasion bluff.

My point is that some of that value will be weak against a 3bet calling range.

99 vs 87s misses the point. 99 is too weak a hand against a player who overvalues JJ etc. You'll be making a 3bet, your opponent will make a calling mistake with JJ and be ahead of you. Putting this into your calling range when they make a standard raise and you'll be ahead of them most of the time. 87s is pure bluff with a little bit of equity that can make the nuts by the river, I may not want to call a weak range with holdings like Q7 but a 3bet protected by my strongest hands will punish weak ranges.

I may have made my point about not calling too often too strongly

I see what you are saying but disagree at least when it comes to premium hands (TT+, AK). I'll pick one example to keep it simple to explain. 3-betting JJ on the BTN versus a tight Hijack raise is still the correct play. This is because even tight players are positionally aware and loosen up as they get closer to the button. Maybe they won't raise with 42s but they may well raise with QJ/KQ and many others for example.

The equity of your JJ vs a Villain's KQ is 53/47. As you see it is very close so you are going in with the best hand but only by a very small margin. Not enough to "slowplay". Most flops will have an overcard to your pair which means you'll play carefully. KQ would/should fold to a 3-bet preflop out of position. So, most of the time you will be winning a small pot if they play good poker. If they do call which is a mistake on their behalf, you are playing IN POSITION and with the initiative for the rest of the hand. 60% of the time (when they don't hit), a c-bet will take it away.

If you had QQ and were facing another hand like JT then you are a massive favourite (4 to 1) and should still be raising for value. If they fold, they fold. Just like when you 3-bet with AA. But if they call, that's even better. Give them a chance to make the mistake and call.

I don't think all the hands you've listed would play the same way though. For example, KQ for me would be a call against a tight hijack open. Also note that there are many levels of tight. If we are talking about a 2/2 then only play QQ+ against them.

Fearing the 4-bet when you 3-bet with JJ is ok but think about it. If a very tight player is 4-betting you chances are you are beat. It's rare to see light 4-bets from very tight players at these stakes. Even if it sometimes happens, most of the time they have a legit better hand. Isn't it better to get off relatively cheap and with a lot more reliable information?

I understand the thought process but again think hand types need to be separated a bit more. Mainly because QQ and AQ as the examples you gave play extremely differently. For starters AQ needs to hit and QQ does not. Anyway, you know that.

If Villain folds a lot to 3-bets your reasoning seems ok IF you hold a monster (QQ+) AND Villain really is tight so you can narrow their range more easily. So if Villain holds something like AJ you at least win their c-bet 60% of the time (when they don't hit) and additionally, if you hit a set and they hit top pair your hand is disguised which will win you more money. However, I wouldn't recommend always using this strategy because while you are trapping well sometimes, you are also losing value by not 3-betting them when they also hold a big pair. The extreme case is you have AA and they have KK/QQ. If you don't 3-bet you are again not allowing them to make a mistake and get stacked. I'd rather win 10 small pots and stack them once than call eleven times, only stack them if both of us hit (less likely) and even get out-flopped and lose (or worse, get stacked) sometimes.

As for the second item in your list, if they don't like to fold a lot of their range vs a 3-bet that is a great reason to 3-bet for value when you hold a great hand. As mentioned before, it really depends on how much of a nit Villain is but most players loosen up in late position. Calling with medium pairs seems fine because if they are tight you don't really know where you stand and you don't want those hands to get 4-bet because they would be a clear fold then. You can set mine very profitably instead. Suited connectors are a whole different topic. Most likely you should only be playing them in multi-way pots because in those pots you typically get better pot odds to chase your draws. Calling nit raises with them (without other callers) won't be profitable in the long run unless you consistently outplay your opponents using position but at these stakes more often than not you are against calling stations.


100% agree with the second point. 3-bet excellent hands vs fish all day = profit.

But regarding both points I think you should consider your position and Villain's position as well. With the same hand it may be correct to 3-bet them out of position and just call in position.

3-betting light works well if they fold a lot to 3-bets but I would highly recommend you don't 3-bet light EP raises by default even if they fold a lot to 3-bets in general. Pick your spots based on position. You mentioned "Villain in neither too loose nor too tight". Well, if Villain is too loose, 3-betting for value makes sense. The extreme is Villain is fish-loose and opened from EP. I am 3-betting all my good hands in this case because they'll call with random worse hands. If Villain is too tight and fold to 3-bets a lot then 3-betting also makes sense but you'd probably avoid 3-betting their EP opens.

Another point related to this is deciding which hands to call an all-in preflop with. Although you should have a general rule, you can adjust when Villain is incredibly loose/fishy/short-stacked/desperate.


Agree as long as you have way more value hands than bluff hands and you pick your spots well. Against fish there is zero reason to polarize because they'll call you down with A-high and are not even paying attention. Against regs it makes more sense.


By the way, to quote multiple times you just need to type the following without spaces.

[ Q U O T E ]
The text to quote goes here.
[ / Q U O T E ]

Well it is clear to me how extremely complex this concept is.
Like a week ago I made a thread about breaking big concepts down into smaller components. But the response I got was negative. I am now, after the discussion in this thread, even more sure that my initial thought was right. I must break it down. Take small steps at a time and build on it to create a good strategy.
It would be much easier to discuss a more specific situation than this. That would also make it easier to notice if I am improving or not. And it would give me a better focus when I am playing.
Breaking down 3betting into smaller components is what I will do. Here are some things that come to mind (But please feel welcome to add something):

- 3betting from the blinds
- 3betting 99, TT and JJ (as these seem to live a life of their own)
- Villains image, 3betting a tight/loose player, his tendencies to call 3bets etc.
- 3bet bluffing, when it is profitable in the micros.
- Being in position and faced with a 3bet.
- Playing non pair big cards like KQ, AJ, QJ, AQ, when is it best to call/3bet.

I am actually happy with this list
Feel free to comment on any of these points.

Maybe my post above was not so bad. I just now decided to only research the situation where we are faced with a raise with 99, TT and JJ. It became much easier to look for information and understand it. I now have a better idea of how these hands work and maybe I can build on this knowledge

Here is what I found today about above mentioned hands.
In position, 99-JJ is usually a call unless we know the initial raiser makes a lot of mistakes when faced with a 3bet and being OOP.
A "normal" range that calls my 3bet OOP is usually a bunch of hands I only slightly beat. Any overcard to my pair will fit nicely to that range and I might not be able to extract much value. It should be easier, or more profitable, to just call these hands in position and play a small pot with a good hand.

I was thinking of an example where I have JJ and villain has KTs. Against that hand I have 67,5% (assuming none of my jacks are the same suit as his cards). If I know he folds this hand to a 3bet, I rather just call, instead of winning the standard 3bb open with almost 70% equity.
Change my hand to AQo, I only have 58% equity vs KTs and I am much more happy to 3bet and get a fold.

But if I am in the bb. Villain can call a 3bet wider, and at the same time I am more happy if the hands with more than 30% equity folds preflop. Because it is harder for me to play OOP.
So when I change my position to the bb I suddenly feel more like 3betting.

Since these hands can never be used as a 3bet bluff I must make sure it is a 3bet for value. And the one situation where I am comfortable 3betting 99-JJ for value in position is when villain is so bad that I can pretty much always understand if I am behind or ahead and I also know he makes a lot of mistakes in big pots OOP.

Thoughts on this anyone???

Would you mind elaborating on 3-betting from the blinds?
I know A2s-A5s are very good for this purpose. Since an LP raise is usually wide I don't have to worry about having too many bluffs in my range? I could widen my range by choosing some hands that does not play very well post flop.
Take a small pocket pair for example. An LP raise will be wide and weak so I can't expect to make a lot of money by set mining OOP. But if I 3bet and flop a set I make a lot of money since villains range should be really strong. And if I only take down the 3bb then that's fine to.
So since small pocket pairs have too much equity vs an LP raise I can't just fold, and calling will probably not be profitable in the long run, so 3betting them might be much better?
Another nice addition to this is that on a low board my opponent know I could have flopped a set and this is very good for the times I have AK.
(I do understand that 99% of micro opponents does not think about this stuff but no matter what I want to think about these things to prepare myself for higher stakes)

So we now have A2s-A5s and 22-55. And 99+, AK.
Do I need to widen my range even more?

One more thing. Small blind is a completely different game right? Since the big blind is still left to act behind me.
I prefer being much tighter from SB and pretty much only play relatively strong hands against initial raisers range.

Hi TheEros

Some very good stuff you've posted.

Having just finished 100K hands on NL2 ZOOM Full Ring and moving up to NL5 one thing I have to say is, it's a bad idea to combine "the micros" when deciding on a strategy. Sure, there are things that apply to all stakes but it is evident to me now that beating NL5 won't be done in exactly the same way as crushing NL2.

Going back to the beginning of the post, you've both mentioned that you play NL5 but posted an NL2 hand. So, which is it? :P

As I was saying, some of the strategy to beat NL2 can be very exploitable if used on NL5 if only because in NL5 you are facing more nits than fish.

Regarding 3-bets, you can crush NL2 without EVER 3-betting light. I've 3-bet light there but you really don't have risk your chips because you'll use them against fish in better spots. At NL5 I don't have enough experience (20K hands spread over 2 years) yet to know for sure but I do not think it is the same based on the most recent hands.

So, let's assume we are talking about NL5 because that's when you'll face and do more (light) 3-bets.

I like the idea of breaking problems into smaller problems. It's also how I think. Your components seem appropriate too and could lead to a great discussion.

About the first topic of what to do with 99-JJ. I can only talk about what worked on NL2, given that I don't have enough evidence of whether the strategy is still profitable at NL5.

- My general approach was to pretty much ALWAYS call with 99 both IP and OOP. The main reason being that the hand does pretty bad against a 4-bet. I play most middle pairs this way.

- I consider TT and JJ to be stronger than mid-pairs but weaker than premium pairs as obvious as that sounds and play them similarly. I am 3-betting with them more often than not both IP and OOP. This is for two reasons. First they are strong hands so I am doing it for value and second, I don't want to be the one only 3-betting with KK-AA. There are exceptions. If the open came from EP I flat because their range is stronger and the risk of getting 4-bet is greater. If the open came from an extremely tight nit from EP/MP I am also more likely to call to avoid 4-bets. Now, if the open came from a nit in MP but I am in the blinds, I would still rather 3-bet than call OOP (similarly to your thought process). If we get 4-bet in this scenario at least we will likely be folding correctly.

I don't really agree with the reasoning you mentioned when you have JJ and Villain has KT (and may be wrong here). So, sure, you have more equity so you are hoping to win a bigger pot post-flop rather than a small one pre. I think this is a bit greedy The truth is with 66% equity you will lose the pot 1/3 of the time based on pure math alone. But there are other cases where you will lose. If the flop contains overcards, you slow down and possibly fold to a bet even if they don't hit. Add to this the fact that some Villains will sometimes call preflop with the KTs and for those cases you want to be raising for value. This is similar to my earlier argument a few posts above.

If you KNOW that the Villain folds to 3-bets a lot then I would say the way to exploit them is by 3-betting lighter rather than 3-betting less. If they don't adjust you profit and if they overadjust they may well call your 3-bet with KT so more value. And again, even if you know they fold to 3-bet a lot maybe they wouldn't fold with 88 or 99 which you definitely want value from as well.

Do you mean because they know/think you are re-stealing light?

The last part about 3-betting all of those hand IP against fish I couldn't agree more.

About 3-betting from the blinds.

First, it seems to me that re-stealing light is completely Villain dependent. I am not too keen on re-stealing light against a Villain on whom we have no stats. At NL5 you find Villains with a steal percentage of 10% so definitely seems like a bad idea to re-steal.

In my opinion, I don't think you need to widen your range more than what you've mentioned unless the Villain stats warrant it. If you see a Villain with 85% attempt to steal and 85% fold to 3-bet, you can easily 3-bet them from the blinds with QJ, T9s hell even 54s, pretty much any two playable cards and show a profit If they start picking up on that they'll most likely steal less which is good.

Including small pocket pairs is an interesting idea. What I have against that is what happened to seeing a cheap flop? So, sure you will win pre a certain amount of the time. If you get 4-bet you have to fold so lost your chance of set-mining for cheap. If you get called what is the plan for the flop? You can decide to c-bet and play it like any other hand but they you'll be in a 3-bet pot, forced to commit more money OOP with a hand that will only hit 12% of the time. Sure, that 12% of the time IF THEY ALSO HIT you can win big. But 78% of the time it's likely you will lose a medium sized pot (3-bets + your c-bet).

The other option is to NOT c-bet when you miss but then your plan is really check-fold after investing 9BB? That seems a bit weak.

Splitsuit and others advocate that folding small pp versus a steal may be a better option, just like you should be folding them at NL5 in EP. Seems like a waste of equity but if you think about it, how are you going to be making money without losing in the long run? Personally, I usually just call, just like I would from any position and try to set-mine.

SB vs LP steal we need to tighten up, I agree. Unless BB folds to steal a high percentage of the time which is the same criteria for when you are considering whether to steal from LP.

SB vs BB only for me is a raise/fold always.

Yeah sorry for not clearing that up. I play nl5 but when I am working on a new concept, especially something a bit uncomfortable, I like to go down to NL2 and do it there instead. I also do not have a massive bankroll for nl5 so I just make sure that "trying something new" does not cost me too much.

Sure but I want 3-betting light to be a part of my arsenal. And it's better to work on it where it doesn't cost me that much to fail Also I don't feel the need to save my chips for better spots, if that's what you meant? I mean I always start a hand with a minimum of 100bb.

Hmm in my experience JJ does not do better than 99 against a 4-bet. A typical nl2 4bet range have two cards higher than a J. JJ would be much better against a 4bet than 99 only if a 4bet includes some Tx and Jx hands right?

I get your point. But do you think you often get value with TT and JJ in position? Do many players call 3bets OOP with dominated hands? But NOT 3betting TT and JJ does not mean you can only 3bet AA and KK. (By the way, if I sound arrogant then I am sorry, it is not meant that way. I am just trying to make sure I understand you. English is not my first language so it is pretty hard to express myself correctly.)

Yeah I agree that we should be 3-betting lighter if villain folds a lot. But I just don't think 99-JJ is the best hands to do it with. Maybe I am greedy but I rather keep some random semi strong hands in my opponents range instead of taking down only his initial raise. If he folds a lot I would prefer to 3bet with A2s-A5s, small pockets, and some suited connectors, as well as ATo and AJo.

No, I mean because they are more likely to call a 3bet in position than OOP.

Nothing wrong with seeing a cheap flop. But I rather do it with hands that flop pretty well and also dominates a good part of his LP raise. Calling with KJ as an example dominates a lot of his weaker Kx and Jx.

Problem with set mining is that heads up OOP we don't make a lot of money in the long run if we flop a set vs a wide weak LP range. I also believe that a Cbet might take down the pot very often. Any A-high and K-high flop is a good Cbet imo. And on a low board I either flopped a set or some sort of backdoor straight draw, + the fact that villain almost always missed on that low board.

Yeah I would not Cbet a board that hits his range much better than mine obv. 8,T,Q is clearly not a Cbet. But it is possible to think about my 3bet in a vacuum. I mean if my opponent folds so much of his range than the 3bet is an auto profit in the long run. If he decides to call I can decide to never invest one more cent in this pot and still profit in the long run. This assumes that villain does not adjust his 3bet calling range.

This on the other hand seems too weak for me. Small pp should have way too much equity vs an LP raise to just fold.


This was fun. We disagree a lot

Understandable but beware that opponents won't react the same way given that the two stakes play differently. To name a simple example, at NL5 players actually have a fold button.

The only thing I meant is in NL2 you don't need this move in your arsenal, at all, since you have no fold equity. So your chips are better spent on value bets rather than bluffs that will inevitably fail.

I agree that both hands do badly against 4-bets and I'll mostly be folding all of them to a 4-bet. However, I may call the 4-bet (IP) or 5-bet JJ against certain hyper aggressive players who 3-bet lighter (any pair for example) or who I've seen go all in pre with small pp but will pretty much never do so holding 99. JJ does beat more hands than 99.

This is where I think you can't mix the two stakes. At NL2 we definitely get lots of value and lots of players calling 3-bets with all sorts of crap. At NL5 it really depends on Villain. Good players will fold to 3-bets most of the time and 4-bet when they have better. Bad players will still pay. If I hold TT and make Villain fold AQ pre, I am happy. If Villain wants to set mine I am also happy they call with my 80% equity. If Villain calls with anything else, they are making a mistake most likely.

I guess our main difference is I am happy to take down lots of small pots pre whereas you would rather go for bigger pots post having more equity. Villains should be folding to our 3-bets most of the time so we will pick up lots of small pots. If they 4-bet they will usually not be doing this light so we'll know we are beat most of the time and can safely fold. Another advantage of this approach is you get an opportunity to narrow down their range which will mean you can hand read better.

But like I mentioned, if Villain is a complete nit and especially in EP I am not 3-betting any of these hands because the chances of a 4-bet are just too high.

Not at all. Needless to say the same on my part. It is clear we are both trying to learn so this is a very healthy and good natured debate


In a 3-bet pot I couldn't disagree more because if they've called your 3-bet their range is pretty strong. In most cases 77+ (not AA or KK because they'd 4-bet), AK and maybe AQ. All of the flops you've mentioned hits their range pretty hard (as well as your perceived range). On an A-high/K-high flop when they don't have the A/K they could easily call at least one bet because your perceived range is similar to theirs of even wider if you usually 3-bet light. In their shoes, in a 3-bet pot I will definitely call a c-bet with QQ/JJ.

Based on the above, I disagree. Someone who calls a 3-bet will most likely have lots of pairs in their range, so they don't really need to hit and they will likely call most of your c-bets. Check your own DB and see what hands you flat call a 3-bet with. Also, if you 3-bet, your perceived range is also pretty strong so nothing tells them you don't have AA/KK. Checking a 8TQ board is basically turning your hand face up because you are telling them you don't have a premium.

Probably a good board to c-bet would be AKQ because they'll have so many lower pairs.

I kind of agree. However, the reason for that strategy is what you wrote earlier: Problem with set mining is that heads up OOP we don't make a lot of money in the long run if we flop a set vs a wide weak LP range. If you don't make money in the long run, why play them?

Disagreeing is great! This is how we learn Maybe some NL5 pros can pitch in.

This is where it gets confusing. You previously said that the typical nl2 player call with all sorts of junk. Now you say that their range is strong when they call. Are we confusing nl2 with nl5 here?

Yeah but the point about expanding my range is that I am not always strong so I get more value when I am. But that's why on that flop I would also check TT and QQ, hoping to check raise or allow villain to catch up if he really missed.


Because we can make money in the long run by doing something else than calling. But from the blinds I think it is more important to understand that I will be losing money. So it is not about making a net profit from the blinds, but rather make the net loss smaller. A penny saved is a penny earned. I would however call if LP minraises. I am still not convinced that calling with them is better than 3betting

It does get confusing because it's hard to generalise every single scenario into one sentence. In this case I was referring to when you have 3-bet a good player, sorry for the confusion. If a good player calls your 3-bet, their range is typically strong. If a bad player call, they can have all sorts of junk

In both cases, the c-bet may not be great because in one case they are very strong and in the other case if they were bad enough to call pre they may well call anything so you lose at least a bit of fold equity otf.

If you check your entire range, that's fine I guess, at least in terms of not turning your hand face up. I like it. However, if we were talking about set-mining after you've 3-bet a small pp, isn't the goal to try to extract maximum value? So, would you also check a set in that scenario? If Villain checks behind you lose a lot of value. This is the exact reason why it's difficult to set-mine profitably OOP.


The only way we'll understand if this works is looking at the math and looking at thousands of hands of evidence playing this strategy. Challenge?

I still think that 3-betting small pp from the blinds as a general rule will most likely lose you more money. Especially if the plan is to check/fold when you miss and check/raise your entire range when you hit. It seems to me that when you hit you won't stack the opponent most of the time (because of the passive approach post) and when you don't hit you lost 9BB instead of 3BB.

There is an alternative which I would like a bit more. It is to only do it only when you have perfect conditions to 3-bet light. In other words, Villain's attempt to steal is huge and fold to 3-bets is large too. That way, you will win the 3BB a high percentage of the time.

The math side:
Let's take the extreme case where Villain's fold to 3-bet when stealing is 80%. In a hundred hands:

- Every time they fold you win their raise: 80% * 3BB = 240BB
- When they 4-bet you, say 3% of the time you fold and lose your 3-bet: 3% * 9BB = 27BB
- When they call you, the remaining 17% of the time you will:
a) Lose when you don't hit (assuming you don't c-bet as mentioned) 88% of the time. If you don't take a stab they'll most likely bet at least on one of the streets. 17% * 0.88 * 9BB = 134 BB
b) Hit 12% of the time. The question is whether you can stack them by not c-betting. That will be very player dependent. Not every player would stack off after a flop check/raise (I wouldn't). Let's be optimistic and assume you can stack them a third of the time (roughly when they hit) and take down the pot the other times. I am ignoring the times when you hit AND lose but those should also be accounted for. I also think more often than not you would win a medium sized pot rather than stack them because of your flop check but let's be optimistic.

Stack them: 17% * 0.12 * 0.33 * 100BB = 67BB
Take down pot: 17% * 0.12 * 0.66 * 9BB = 12BB

EV = 240 - 27 - 134 + 67 + 12 = +158BB

This was obviously oversimplified and incredibly optimistic. Realistically you won't stack a good opponent that often. But also, note that your EV is mostly coming from the 240BB when they fold pre rather than the 67BB when you supposedly stack them. This is clearly only profitable when the stats are favourable.

No on that board we discussed I would not check my entire range. I check-raise top and mid set because I would also like to check the strongest draws. And I also block a whole lot of villains flop calling range. But I might induce a bluff from villains air since I show weakness. All though this is my default play in single raised pots OOP, not sure I can really do the same in a 3bet pot since my 3bet range does not have all the draws.

No I would definitely not check all the time. But if the 3bet is profitable in the long run I don't feel like I absolutely have to take down the pot when I miss. I have definitely not figured this whole thing out though.

Totally agree because I am after all bluffing when I 3bet small pp. Of course I do not 3bet OOP with small pockets vs players who don't fold pre or post.


Nice work (y) Yes I expect most of my profit to come from villains folds.
And I think it is clear that my range can not be decided completely before the situation occurs. I will not 3bet 22-55 from bb 100% of the times. Like you say we want favorable conditions. If villain folds a lot to 3bets not only do I auto profit but I can also expect to win a nice pot the few times I hit a set and my opponent has a strong range in position.