So are you advocating that we "only" 3-bet with hands that are ahead of our villains' continuation ranges when they call our 3-bet????

Absolutely. Raising preflop and continuing with a c-bet is a staple of winning poker because 2/3rds of the time the flop will miss our villains. In the case of us 3-betting, we take (or retake) the initiative and can often rep a big hand post flop and even take down pots in which our villains have hit.


I don't have such a pessimistic view. If villain is loose enough so that I'm 3-betting him light then he is loose enough to have a wide 3-bet calling range as well. I think you are kinda seeing MUBs with your thinking that if some loose V calls we are suddenly crushed by his calling range. Not even close.

It's been my experience that if a villain has a raising range that is wide enough to make me start 3-betting him light then he also has a 3-bet calling range that is wide enough such that I'm still in decent shape if he calls. Not to mention that if we have a decent image then our 3-bet is going to look like QQ+, AK and we can often rep QQ+


I have no problems ever folding a light 3-bet to a 4-bet. 4-bets at this level is exclusively KK+ so big deal we fold

I find it interesting that you would rather give V a super wide range that includes AA and KK and play against that range while V has the initiative than 3-bet against that range and having to fold to a 4-bet when the 4-bet will happen less than 3% of the time and when it does we can be 95% confident it's KK+.

THink about that. Do the math.

Lets say V is opening with a wide 30% range, just splashing it around and running the table like a wannabe LAG boss. Why on earth should we be opposed to 3-betting him with our top 10% range? V is only going to have QQ+, AK less than 3% of the time which comprises 10% of his raising range. So basically, 90% of the time this is a non-issue for us so why should we be scared?

Conversely, what does it do to our hand when we play 100% face up vs a LAG and "only" 3-bet QQ+ ,AK. This is exactly one of the reasons why thinking players and halfway decent LAGs own LLSNL players at 1/2nl.

I'm not trying to be snarky. We need to seriously think about the principles for why we raise to begin with and then ask ourselves what is so different in this spot in regards to 3-betting.

I know, 3-betting light is out of the comfort zone of a lot of LLSNL, but trust me, one of the best ways to augment your game and improve your winrate is recognizing villains who you can 3-bet light, and by "light" I mean a top 10% or even a top 8% raising range.

I get I can't beat this dead horse enough. If we notice a villain raising with a wide range, something seriously crazy like 25% or 30%, we should be 3-betting light with a top 10% (or 8%) range.

Obviously we can go around discussing this for hours, but I think you misunderstood me to a certain extent. I am not saying that we should only ever be 3betting QQ+, AK. One thing you didn't really mention in any of your responses is stack size. In the OP, the effective stack size is just over 100bb. I just don't think it is the most +ev decision to 3bet a hand like AQ from the blinds. I think that flatting is better in that spot unless you have a serious read that villain will get it in pre with AJ and such. I think that 3bet/folding a hand like AQ in that situation is far worse than just flatting and proceeding from there.