Hi 2+2,

I was studying in GTOWizard when I noticed that when the solver decided to 3B from the blinds, it would choose a sizing of 12bb or 13bb from an open of 2.5bb. This differs from my conventional, maybe antiquated understanding of going 4x from the blinds when deciding to 3B with an open and it folds to you. Is it because it is trying to dissuade calls in general? And if your opponents call too much with hands that aren't "GTO approved" such as 44 and 75s, does it mean that we should open more linearly, with less bluffs and more value as an exploit? And if they are calling with said marginal/trash hands, can we 3B even larger with a tighter nutted range if they don't adjust? Looking forward to seeing what y'all have to say.

My pet theory is that the solver is manipulating the stack depth to limit the power of your opponent's 4-bet. I call this the Efficient Jam Principle - solvers will fight to limit the power of each other's shoves, and maximize the power of their own shoves.

100bb deep, BTN 2.5bb, BB makes it 13bb

BTN wants to 4-bet, they can't do that effectively vs this size. They have three awkward options:

• 4-bet to around 26bb, putting in a flaccid half-pot raise with a polarized range.
• 4-bet using a more natural pot-sized raise to 39bb, then being forced to drastically over-defend vs a shove
• 4-bet shove 330% pot

Exploring shorter stack depths, you see a similar pattern, where BB will 3-bet in such a way that the opponent has to choose between a min-click 4-bet or a shove.
Exploring deeper stack depths, you see the IP raiser using a more natural pot-sized 4-bet, e.g. at 200bb the line might look like this: 2.5bb -> 12bb -> 38bb

I explore this theory a bit more in my preflop mechanics video.

I think it's a combination of the above, with regards to the math arising from the starting stack depth, but also just that going larger with our raise sizing when we're OOP decreases our opponents' incentive to call and play the rest of the hand with a positional advantage.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I don't quite understand larger 3bet sizes from oop either. From a bluffing perspective, we invest a lot compared to what we can win. Ingame I always hate to 3bet from oop when I hold a bluffing candidate. The 3bet will show no auto-profit anyway, because most players know that being ip for the rest of the hand is a huge advantage. Another point is that the ip player chooses most likely a small 4bet size, because that's the best way to attack a polarized range. All in all bluffing from oop is just horrible, especially if you take a larger 3bet size. I might've a misunderstanding here, and preflop bluffs from oop are more based around postflop play in form of valuable flop cbets or something. Using in larger size to compensate for the positonal disadvantage and decrease the opponents likelihood for calling does not fit to my understanding of the game, because they are doing it anyway and by quite a lot, such that preflop bluffs with a larger size will not yield an auto-profit.

I just always assumed the solver wants more folds when it raises from the blinds. So it's trying make calling and 4 betting less profitable for the opener. I know I'm very happy when I rfi from whereever and the SB or BB 3 bets to 6 to 8xbb. Cause then hands that are normally auto folds become pure calls

Another factor to consider is that the larger 3-bet sizing makes the SPR smaller going into the flop which allows over pairs to realize their equity more often by being able to stack off. I don't believe OOP makes a larger 3-bet size to discourage calls, but rather to extract value with the premium parts of OOP's range.

To expand on disincentivizing calls from LP...

I think the question assumes that the initial raise is coming from LP, often the BTN. But the original raise can be from anywhere. The earlier the position of the initial raise, the more often I would expect the solver to just be pure folding, not 3B'ing, because EP opens should have a stronger range.

When the solver 3B's, it's likely 3B'ing a stronger range with fewer bluffs over an EP open, and a somewhat wider range with more bluffs over an LP open, to attack the LP's weaker range.

I think the solver is trying to make opponents indifferent to a call or fold, not really contemplating how it will respond to a 4B. I think tombos21 is correct about part of the reasoning for a larger 3B size is to make it hard for V to 4B profitably, because the 4B sizing choices are all awkward. But if V does 4B, the solver is going to 5B jam the strongest hands and fold the weakest.

I'd think that being OOP, the solver would also want to be indifferent to V calling or folding, so the 3B size has to maximize the value of our hand when we're strong, and maximize the fold equity when we're not. So the 3B ranges and the 3B sizing are tailored to fit the situation, based on where the initial raise came from, and the size of the initial raise.

The solver doesn't want to 3B too small, allowing V to profitably call with a wider range of hands with good equity and a positional advantage. A larger 3B denies equity from the part of V's range that could profitably call a smaller 3B.

I'm not sure if all that is right, but it seems logical to me.

Another benefit of using larger size from BB and polarizing ones 3B range is that it also strengthens ones calling range.

Same when we polarize post-flop: aside from leveraging our nut advantage when we overbet, we also strengthen our checking range.

From what I understand, the solver wants to de-incentivize people from set-mining, thus choosing an amount where callers are not getting the right price to do so.

One could state the same argument for IP 3bets.

You get folds from hands with decent equity with smaller sizings IP, also you get to realise more of your equity if you go postflop

How much of it is simply lowering the SPR to decrease the positional advantage?

I wonder how the EV of the OOP player changes based on SPR, assuming the ranges are inelastic to the 3bet size change.

Not much because you 3-bet smaller 200-300bb deep

Would love to find out what sizings GTO would use preflop when 300-1000bb deep

Cause the lower the spr is the less advantage someone has with being in position vs you. You also want to max the fold equity since being out of position you make more money over the long term if they fold more. If you 3b smaller you will get more callers and your going to lose money long term the more times they call.

Only to add a possibly interesting observation...

I've commented in strategy threads here on the forum, where I said we should open or 3B larger when OOP, and at least one guy responded as if it was crazy for me to even suggest such a thing. Like, he'd never heard of using different bet sizes based on position, but thought if anything, we should go smaller.

Apparently there's still some strat debate about opening smaller or larger when OOP, with one camp saying we should want to minimize our disadvantage when OOP by playing a smaller pot, and thus use smaller bet sizes.

So...still a fair number of old school guys using smaller raise sizing OOP, apparently.

Go figure.

This just makes me think that it is better to 3 bet larger when at 100 bb's, rather than when deeper at say 200 bb's. Op said solver prefers a large 3bet sizing pree 100bb's deep. Just for clarity and excuse my stupidity, doesn't pre 100bb's deep mean more than 100 bb's?

Opening OOP and 3betting OOP are different. Solvers like to open smaller when opening in an early position, but 3-betting larger while OOP.

I remember when the old school of thought was to open 4x in early position, 3x in other positions and 2.5x on the button, or something similar to that. The idea was that in early position you want to play less hands and you want to raise bigger to discourage callers so that you play less multiway pots.

Then people realized it is flipped around and you should open larger in later position and smaller in early position. I see a lot of 2x in early positions then 2.3x in later positions and 2.5x on the Button. Some say the idea is that you lose less when you are 3-bet and you are more likely to get 3-bet opening from an earlier position. I believe that it has to do with picking a size that best challenges the BB. An early positional range is going to have stronger equity and doesn't need to risk as much to win the blinds.

Personally I open 3x from all positions because it keeps things simpler and the SPRs that I run into are more familiar. I think it also makes it easier to extract more money from less experienced players. Another advantage is that GTO studied players are more likely going to study spots where the opener made it 2.5x preflop rather than 3x.

Opening larger from early position is still totally reasonable in loose-passive games like live, and in the old days it was also a good strategy online when people only 3bet like JJ+/AK and cold called stuff like 85s and QTo in the CO.