Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzthetaxman
Flatting is bad, puts you in a spot where you have no idea of what anyone's range is. 4 bet fold is my line here. It doesn't have to be a big 4 bet.
If you range every 1/2 three bet as KK+, then I really don't know what to say.
Yeah, the real difference between our opinions is how we range the villain preflop. I think strongrad also implied this in his response to my post above.
I'll clarify what I mean by fundamental #1.
At my room, most if the 1/3 players are very passive. They flat raises with AK pre. They look down at JJ? Flat. Every time. Some of these passive players raise QQ, but many still just flat it. This is probably 70% of players in my room. There are also 15 or 20% spewtards who 3-bet randomly. They could have AA, 33, T4s. Then there are about 10 or 15% of players in the room who are smart, aggressive winners. They have a wider 3-betting range, down to TT/AQ, depending on the circumstances, and some of them even have some bluffs with suited connectors in position when deep, and Ax squeezes too.
So at any given table, I should look around and expect to see, on average, 6 players who only 3-bet KK+. Yep, this sounds about correct for where I play.
Since this is my experience (yours may be different), I naturally
assume that all 3-bets are KK+ until proven otherwise. If I see someone 3-bet with JJ or AK, I reprofile them, but not before that. If someone hasn't been to SD but has been 3-betting a lot, I reconsidrr my profile of them as well. And if I have alot of history with a villain, and he 3-bets for the first time that I can remember, I certainly assume he has KK+.
This is my summary of fundamental #1 and is pretty much what the preflop decision hinges on: whether his small 3-bet is KK+ or wider. I want to assume only KK+ since we have no proof otherwise. The hard facts (he hasn't 3-bet, at least not that we can remember, also the bet sizing) support KK+, while the softer facts (he gets in leveling wars and makes moves against other villains, he might be squeezing really small) support a wider range.
Do you at least see why I think my reasoning is pretty sound while your reasoning sounds fanciful? I guess we both are making assumptions which is what poker is about (incomplete information). What are you basing your wider range for him on?