Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupidbanana
I'm just trying to think of scenarios where I would want to 3-bet someone's x/r and I can't think of any. If they're bluffing too much (ie. their range is too weak) I want to just call. If their range is too nutted I want to just fold/call.
It would only make sense if I thought my range was still ahead of their x/r value and stacks were deep enough to not be in by the river, no?
Not sure if this is answering your question or just me thinking out loud...
We should have some post flop 3B's, at least sometimes, but the scenarios would seem rare, most likely cooler situations, and often against bad opponents, where we have a monster, or a monster combo draw. It's got to be strong range vs strong range, unless someone was massively slow playing something.
The first scenario that comes to mind is set over set, or boat over trips. Straight over straight on a two tone board. Flush over flush.
Board texture, stack depths, pre flop action, and position all come into play, when trying to figure out how to get stacks in. Do we want to flat call and risk V shutting down on a scary runout? Are we too face up if we 3B?
There's also the psychological aspect, where V's discount us fast-playing the nuts, and assume we're bluffing with a range advantage.
In game, facing an x/r as the PFR, I think about how vulnerable my hand is or how likely it is to improve vs V's range, and what size bet I'm expecting on the turn. If my hand is likely best, but vulnerable to being downgraded on a bad runout, and unlikely to improve, and doesn't block V's most likely bluffs, I'm more likely to 3B. If my hand isn't too vulnerable, and I think V will over-commit to a bluff on the turn, I'm more likely to just call.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk