Hi again. This time its a simple question but it seems like i really dont know the right answer. Some sources says 1 thing others other thing. So which one of these two is 3-betting for value?

a) If we have 55% equity against villains opening range
b) If we have more than 50% equity vs villains continuing range vs our 3bet

Thank you very much.

Assuming you mean preflop? It's (c):

c) a hand that earns more profit from the pot by 3 betting compared with calling or folding.

If you want to talk strictly river 3 betting all in? It's this:

The all in qualifier is important because you have to account for being 4 bet, which hurts the profitability of your thin value hands.

Thanks a lot. Specially for river 3bet.
One more question. How do we know if the hand is better to 3bet or just call? Im talking about UTG-BU situations. Nowadays its popular to not have a cold calling range at all in these positions. Some coaches does call, some doesnt. I prefer only 3bet or fold strategy, but I feel that maybe Im leaving EV on a table thats why Im curious how to start constructing these ranges and where I can draw the line between 'value 3bet' and 'good for cold calling'.
Thank you.

You used to be able to win stacks vs bad players much more often with stuff like trips and low end straights and low flushes, thus you could coldcall a lot.

Then people started squeezing often, which hurt the profitability of coldcalling to the point of making coldcalling non existent in tag on tag games.

Then people started coldcalling strong hands and they won lots of big pots vs the guys that squeezed too much.

Now the squeezing is much more precise by necessity; if I loosen up my squeeze range, it's on the margin* because the threat of counter exploitation is very real in the modern game. Coldcalling ranges have also become more precise by necessity. Knowing where the bottom of your 3bet range meets the top of your coldcalling range is important because the looser you go with the 3bets, the weaker your available coldcalling range becomes. So vs a maniac in the cutoff? I'm literally never coldcalling because 3 betting more and more hands leads to a very narrow and exploitable range for coldcalling.

*for example, if I think 3 betting 88 vs a 3x raise from two off the button + a coldcaller is standard and correct given the opener's range and the blind's tendencies? Then if the blinds are tight or if the 3 bettor is loosening up, then I'll expand my 3 bet range to include 77, but not 66.

Ok, so what do I coldcall and how do I decide on which hands to fold?

My favorite tables to play at are those that allow me to coldcall a lot. This type of table will feature very few 3 bets to my left and a loose aggressive player to my right. Too bad we can't always find this table. Usually the lineup looks like this:

utg6max: tag
HJ: tag
me: cutoff
button tag
small blind tight tag
big blind: lag

and we're hopefully shooting the **** about some random bs when this happens:

folds to HJ raises 3x, I coldcall, button calls, small blind folds, big blind calls.

4way for 12.5bb with 97bb behind.

I like these ranges for myself and the HJ

HJ: 22+, A2s+, A9o+, A5o, K8s, KJo, Q9s+, QJo, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s.

me: 55-88, ATs, A9s, AQo, AJo, KTs+, KQo, Q9s+, JTs, T9s.

I think the important part is that (55-88, A9s+, AJo+, KJs+, KQo) are more profitable as a call than as a 3 bet; if you choose to 3 bet these hands for whatever reason in this spot? Your calling range ev will drop drastically not just because of the raw equity, but because good players will read you easily.

That's just what I've become accustomed to over the years.

Can’t we bridge the gap using frequencies, at least theory wise?

My definition of 3-betting for value is a bit different. A 3-bet is for value if, when all opponents still in the hand 4-bet all better hands and fold all worse hands, you still make a profit.

I disagree with this definition. This is heavily dependent upon your opponents' tendencies. For example, you could 3-bet 32o against an opponent who folds to 3-bets 90%, and make more money than you would by calling or folding. This does not mean you're 3-betting for value, at least in the way OP was meaning. It's a 3-bet bluff which profits from fold equity.

I don’t think it’s helpful to put preflop 3 betting hands into (bluff) or (value) ranges. When strong players face off multiway, some 3 betting hands earn the most profit when the opponent folds, but this doesn’t mean those hands are bluffs.

Of course if your opponent is folding 90%, you should 3 bet more often, but this is an exception.

If your opponent is playing well then whenever he continues vs your 3 bet he will be doing so profitably; he will be earning a fraction of the pot in addition to the price of continuing in the hand. So it’s not necessarily a condition of value betting to be rooting for your opponent to continue. With many correct 3 betting hands, you’re effectively reducing the profitability of your opponents range by making him pay more to play.

For example, if hand xx is a profitable open raise from y position for 3bb, but that hand only receives (call + 1bb) from the pot, you’re actually rooting for your opponent to fold to the 3 bet, but if he calls then you have reduced the profitability of his hand to <the price of his preflop raise.

^ This ^.
I don't think the terms "value bet" and "bluff" are adequate for pre-flop play (because even 72o has equity, whilst AK can simultaneously fold out better and get called by worse), but they are a somewhat useful/standard lingo for describing parts of ranges. To that extent, I think OP's option B makes a lot more sense than option A.
To me "getting value" means getting action from worse, so your value comes from how your opponent plays his continuance range, and his opening frequency has much less to do with it. That 55% number seems to have been pulled out of someone's arse.

Thats actually from Harringtons "Online Cash Games 6 Max" book, Arty yeah..someones actually read it

Ok, so I know exactly my villains range from UTG in a cash game:


Light blue he is open folding
Yellow cc 3b
AA-KK 4bet us
0 4bet bluffs

So his stats from UTG:

RFI - 14.48%
CC 3b - 3%
4b - 1%
Fold to 3b - 72.38%

What do you guys consider value 3-betting against his range when we are sitting on BU?

Dont know why I cant edit my post so I rewrite the question in more detail:

What do you guys consider value 3-betting against his range when we are sitting on BU and both blinds are uknown players?

OK, well firstly, he's only continuing vs a 3-bet with 99+,AKs,AKo. The range of hands that has >50% equity vs that range is QQ+ only, so you could describe QQ+ as "value raises", but QQ is rubbish against a 4-bet range of KK+. You might want to only use the term "value-raising" for the hands that you take to the felt (i.e. you 5-bet jam), which vs someone that only 4-bets KK+ would solely be AA.

I can't look at that chart and immediately compare the EV of various hands against his continuance range if you 3-bet/fold or call (post-flop action still has to occur), but I imagine you would do better than flatting with hands like TT by 3-betting rather than calling, because villain is folding so often. Denying him the chance to realize his equity is a crucial part of constructing your range. I would suggest you should also 3-bet a lot of suited Broadways, all suited aces (blockers vs his 4-bet range, equity vs his flatting range) and a couple of suited connectors like 76s/65s.
You'll make so much from him folding to the 3-bet, and you'll rarely face a 4-bet, that most of your EV will come from his pre-flop folds. Naturally, on the occasions he does wake up with KK+ and 4-bets you, you should fold all your weaker hands (unless he gives you an incredibly good price), and you should also recognise his flatting range vs the 3-bet is pretty strong (so you should be cautious with the lighter parts of your 3-bet range if you see a flop).

P.S. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't really care whether you call it a value-raise or a bluff. All I'm concerned with is choosing the right play with each combo, such it maximises EV. A hand like 99 doesn't beat any of the pairs that villain continues with, but if (and it's a big if) 3-betting makes more money than flatting versus that player, you should 3-bet. Same with hands like AQ or KQs. Who cares whether it's a bluff or a value bet? All you should care about is whether 3-betting makes more money than calling.

I agree with what I think Arty is saying.

3-betting on the button serves multiple purposes. You do this with a balanced range, most of which will be +EV since you are in position, often heads-up.

Only the very top of your balanced 3b range “wants action”. You are happy to get a fold with a lot of the rest of your range. The worst of your range will be a fold to a 4b, with a few combos to 5! jam if, and only if, your player pool has many players with balanced 5! ranges.

My player pool does not. All 5! and most 4! are mostly AA and some KK from my opponents. So, I fold to the rare 4bets with less than QQ, flat QQ and AKo, and 5! Jam with AA, KK, and AKs. If stacks are very deep and set mining on middle or low boards is profitable, I will flat with some pairs, and some suited connectors. Most of my 3! range is folded to a 4!.

Thanks. And thank you all for your help.

As an aside, if I knew that was villains exact strategy (such as a bot) I would min 3bet them 100% until the blinds catch onto it.