(1) 1/3, $500 effective

We open UTG to $15 (with say AQs+, AKo, 99+). Two calls, then BB raises to $65. Out of our opening range, what are we calling/4betting/folding? BB is a good MAWG (not a nit).

(2) 1/3/10, $500 effective

We open to $30 from HJ with TT. BU asks how much we have behind then calls. BB calls. Flop ($90) 875r. BB checks, I bet $60, BU raises to $175. BB folds. Jam/call/fold?

Hand 1: BB isn’t good. Else he’d raise bigger than $65. I can get behind saying he isn’t a spew monkey

Against size you can probably continue that entire range. I’d probably 4 bet KK+ and QQ/AKs at some frequency near 50/50, as I assume this guy is 3 betting a narrow and strong range.

Hand 2: Check flop. As played we block one of the main bluff Hands in T9s and probably are fairly low in our value bet range. So we can fold


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

H1: Hard to list out ranges with the lack of description. Good MAWG probably means different things to us. Good for 1/3 live? Good in general? Better than most MAWGs? I would do a lot of calling in position for that price against a better than avg MAWG. Not much folding with anything I opened UTG especially if 8-9 handed.

H2: Folding vs unknown. If you’re worried about getting exploited here, a good adjustment would be to protect your x range multi-way by including some over-pairs than continuing here. When you bet and get raised I’m assuming you have all the sets in this spot- so you’re fine unless you’re choosing a noticeably different sizing with those. Should also have 87s.

That UTG opening range is a bigger problem than what to do facing a 3-bet. I hope it’s at least not a short handed game/LJ opening range.

Just copy a chart and you’re playing pre better than 99% of the pool. I’d say it’s ok to copy a range meant for lower sizing because villains will respond by defending wider ranges than what would be ok vs a min raise, let alone 5x, and they won’t 3-bet enough.

Yeah, I’m definitely nitty (perhaps overly so) from up front. This was a 9-handed table at least.

For H2 I would definitely check bigger overpairs here (probably QQ+). But with TT there aren’t many turns I’ll like to see so I thought a bet for some value/protection made sense. I also assume “how much do you have behind” often means a small pocket pair, so sets are somewhat more likely than usual. (If he was being tricky then good for him, but I don’t think so).

Hand 1:

Pretty interesting spot, normally I would only be 4 betting KK+ and AKs but I think there may be something to be said for 4 betting wider to drive out the field callers and take it heads up with initiative.

If he is really a good, thinking player that's capable, then he should be 3 betting QQ+ & AKs always and KQs, AJs, AQs & AKo at some frequency. On top of that he is incentivized to 3! wider due to the dead money from the two field callers, especially if he reads you as someone who may make nitty folds pre (going off your tight UTG open range, you may play nitty).

If he really is "good" (his sizing suggests otherwise) and 3 betting correctly, and the two field callers aren't idiots who cold call 4 bets then I may be tempted to 4! 25% of a normal UTG opening range hoping for folds but ok with going to a flop in position heads up. That means about 30 combos of hands, in your range I'd go with QQ+, AKs and AKo, if KQs was in your opening range I'd put that in there in place of some of the AKo.

Hand 2:

Would have checked this flop and called a bet from the button depending on sizing.

AP, fold, not going to a turn with SPR of less than 1 against this range on this board.

I'm curious as to why everyone is hating on BB's 3bet sizing in HH1? Heck, I'm the poster boy for I-hate-going-multiway-to-committing-SPR-pots-giving-everyone-great-IO, but even if we go 4way here his raise size is offering pretty poorish 12:1 IO (whereas if a 3bet often gets things HU if offers really quite poor 10:1 IO producing a trivially committing SPR of 2.7). I would go a little larger myself (cuz I'm incredibly conservative when in comes to offering IO when committing myself), but his sizing ain't remotely horrible, imo.

GcluelesssizingnoobG

From out of position the standard I've always seen from strong players is 4x + 1x per caller + some sugar on top, which would be at least $100. While the typical sizing you see in a live game from weaker players is 2-2.5x. $65 is somewhere in between I guess.

FWIW, I think the nx + y + sugar method is completely useless due to the fact that it doesn't take into account stack sizes (and stacks sizes / IO / RIO is the most relevant / important concept). This matters less at very small stacks or very large stacks (where the IO / SPR will always be very very small or very very big regardless of the sizing, so going with the nx + y + sugar method would be fine), but most LLSNL games are played at stack sizes where the stack size should be the most important variable with regards to defining the sizing (as it should in this case, imo).

GcluelessreasonsforsizingnoobG

Well just as a fun fact, you’ll see a 6x 3-bet sizing reflected by solvers out of the BB vs an UTG open. Listing all the reasons why is kinda meh for this thread and it tends to be a mistake lol.

But let’s pretend like the above is irrelevant- 4x+1 for each caller is fine. That would be $60+$15+$15 on top so $90. Even in practice, the most likely scenario is that everyone.

People will fold more vs that sizing than a $65 sizing so people like to size smaller when they have AA-KK to “keep them in”.

The better adjustment would be to add more bluffs to your 3-bet range. Not sure what’s so difficult about that.

It is true that the larger open sizing cuts the SPR exponentially but most people aren’t opening as tight as they “should be” for that sizing.

Another key point is that people underestimate the value of the 15+ BBs that are currently out there when it gets back to them in the BB here. Maybe, that’s because they’re making huge mistakes for a lot more consistently. Who knows.