Just discovered this thread today. Great stuff.
Thanks to OP. Ive just spent 30 min cut n Pasting this into a 30 page printable format for some bedtime reading!
Poker Gold, thanks again for all your hard work. Next time stick it in an eBook and charge for it!!!

I will buy your book when it comes out.
VLR, RIA 3x.

Is that math right?I mean if opponent 4 bet as 17%,he will win not only 12bb but his 4bb as well,or not?And what about blinds?

We don't care if villain wins 6 buyins every hand from the rest of the table, we only care about our own stack. 83% of the time we add 4bb to our stack, 17% of the time we lose 12bb from it.

12bb/(12+4+1+0,5)=.68=68% is that wrong?

I don't understand what you're trying to calculate so I can't really say it's wrong... I mean I can see the denominator is the sum of all the dead money at the moment villain is deciding whether to 4b or not but what does the 12bb numerator represent? What does the ratio of the two say?

Again, we don't care what the villain wins. We only care that 12bb of that is coming from our stack (i.e. our own personal loss). We measure the risk of that loss with the gain we realize when he folds and come up with the conclusion that it is profitable for us to 3b.

Yes, we have neglected the value of the blinds in our calculation and that is worth something to us when we win them. But we also neglected the possibility of those players in the blinds waking up with a huge hand and cold 4b, in which case we also lose our 12bb re-raise. It's just a simplification we make in order to concentrate on this specific villain and how to exploit him.

Is it an oversimplification? In a way, everything is... The calculation says to 3b with any two "until villain adjusts". Well that shouldn't take too long if we 3b him all the time! And even if the villain doesn't change anything and keeps giving up his 4bb 83% of the time, other people on the table can notice what we're doing and cold 4b much wider than just huge hands. Now we're the ones being exploited!

But that's not the point of the 0.83(4) – 0.17(12) = 1.28 calculation. It is merely isolating something in villain's game that is exploitable and supporting that assertion with numbers.

Trying to calculate the smallest percentage we need from him to fold as 3bet and we still make profit.

I see... It makes some sense to calculate villain's ev because their gain is our loss and vice versa. But for the sake of your own clarity of thought, I think you should always take the viewpoint of the hero. Here's how I would do the calculation, this time including the blinds.

Let's express our ev as a function of the probability everybody folds to the 3b:

4p + 1.5p - 12(1 - p) = ev

Then solve for the breakeven point (ev=0):

4p + 1.5p - 12(1 - p) = 0
5.5p - 12 + 12p = 0
5.5p + 12p = 12
17.5p = 12
p = 12/17.5

So our ev is 0 if everybody folds 68.6% of the time to our 3b.

just read. this thread is awesome. thanks op. I feel this will help my game immensely.

I understand polarization when in position on villain, but I'm having just a bit of trouble with merging when out of position. Does this just mean 3betting villain with top and middle of our range if he will call wider (generally if he is IP)?

You bet. For example, QTs in the bb is a great flat when our 3bet range is polarized (especially because our semi bluffs postflop help us balance when set mining), but it's a better 3bet against someone who will call 3bets with all sorts of dominated SCs IP.

Stop bumping this thread. The info in it is too valuable and well explained to be seen by everyone.

one of the best posts on 2+2. There are a few good teachers out there

Nice post

this is like the first time EVER I've read a 2+ year old strategy post and it's still been relevant, good job.

wow,
I think that was the best thing I've read in a long time. I like the way it started out simple and catchy then hooked me in to invest more time and mental energy than I originally planned very good.
Best read since I read Will Tipton's "Expert HU NLH"
(far and away the best poker book in my immense library. I mean its not even close. Every time I read a poker book now I just think its time I'm wasting that I could have spent re-reading Tiptons book. This article is similar but not so complex. Got me thinking. Damn it, at work after hours and I work on Salary..two night before Xmas. How inconsiderate of you to lure me in.
L8r,
Navonod

Was just linked here by another post in the subforum. This is pretty useless. It's just a blur of misused vocabulary nonsense over a few simple concepts, like some of ronin's other posts. I'm amazed it got such a positive reception.

Hey shou,
I linked this thread because i find it very simple and clear to try and understand the basics of 3betting. As a beginner you always read that you should 3bet like 7-9% or whatever but you have no clue how to do it properly. I think this article is a very good start.
Can you point out why you think it's garbage ? (Not being sarcastic real question)

Maybe garbage is too harsh. Some of the material is ok for beginners, but Ronin has a classic case of fancy play syndrome.

I remember reading this a few years ago, and it's just now I realize that I didn't get everything out of this. Great article and discussion.

Although I can't help coming to the conclusion that it's hugely exploitable to flat in the blinds against good hand-reading regs.

If we 3bet a polarized range, our flatting range is capped and relatively transparent (unless we get ridiculously good odds to flat with a wide range of hands).

If we 3bet a merged range, our flatting range is also capped and relatively transparent (if we even have one).

Am I missing something?

I think you are missing something.

Defending from the blinds against an open is not "hugely exploitable", it's an essential part of the game. You can't just fold or 3bet from the blinds, you'll get murdered. (OK, maybe you can do this at <NL50)

Capping your range by 3betting is a very small and advanced consideration. Heads up, 100 deep, imagine if you always 3bet 99+, AQ+ (and other stuff), and you never defend 99+, AQ+. What does this mean for your range in single raised pots?

It means on a board of QJT92 no flush, you can never have the nuts. It means when the flop comes AQ9, you can't have a set. These are not very important things, but it may be worth it to very, very occasionally defend AK for instance so you can have the nuts on QJT92 no flush. This especially applies with extremely deep stacks. This is a controversial opinion though.

Anyway, the risk of capping your range by 3betting is small because being unable to have KK or something in a single raised pot is not a big deal.

I think the whole discussion about polarized vs merge range is a little trite. Your range should obviously have elements of both. When I 3bet heads up 100 deep, I'll have 99+ AQ+ for sure and a ton of broadway hands to fill out for straight value hands that can flop a top pair (the merge). Then I have a mixture of connectors, 1 gappers, 2 gappers, 3 gappers, and trash, to cover my range on boards like 456 (the polarization).

So basically, we have to accept that life sucks in the blinds, particularly so on certain board runouts.
Or maybe I'm just not flatting wide enough,

Perhaps in HU that is very often the case, but I'd say from an extremely exploitative standpoint that 3bet ranges should either be loaded with junk or just be merged.

I won't discuss this advanced concept as Im a beginner player but how high do you have to play for you to get worry about regs thinking : yeah his flat range is capped to XX so I can shove and steal the pot ?

About my limits (NL25-50) :
Im trying to 3bet mostly bad players both OOP and IP with a merge range and regulars IP with a polarized one.
This is just a start to get used to 3bet pot.

Do you think that's ok ? Any advice ?

Also do you have any advice on CBET in this 3bet pots facing bad or reg players ? I tend to cbet A/K/Q high board and sometimes babyboard against tight regs.

You have to worry about it at every level, just more and more so as you move up (and vice versa).

Even at nl50 ? meh I guess they were right then, poker is dead

Yep. Been a few posts at the microstakes forums at 5nl where players are thinking about capped ranges and making plays postflop (I've seen 2 since I've joined).

That doesn't mean players are applying concepts in the right spots, or that they're executing lines optimally, it just means they know of it and it might influence their decision now and again. In the micros you'd definitely want some playing history behind you before hoping that villain will understand the moves you're pulling.