3! an 8$ open from a sub 100 bb villain to 25 is small?

At $1/2 just assume that any 4b is QQ+ only until they prove otherwise, and heavily weighted towards KK/AA.

It's pretty simple and players don't need to understand range to have a perceived range.

Worse the player is, more easily to define his perceived range of OP. If he would raise to much more than $25 with QQ+ himself, and many 1/2 players probably believe that, OP's raising size of $25 probably means exactly what he has, AK maybe even AQ.

And they don't see AQ/AK as decent equity; they see them as < TT.

And because of that, they think anyone who calls with 2-over is probably a bad play, and therefore they overestimate their FE. In turn, they are more inclined to 4-bet with any PP and basically merged their range by accident.

A 4b at a standard nervous 1/2 table is KK+, maybe just AA.

However you only have to fiddle a few knobs for that to change drastically.

Villain is a 'reg'. If a reg describes a reg to another reg as a "reg", he isn't a nit. Otherwise 'nit' would have been the original description.

Two raises in first 30 hands does not mean 3% opening range.

Everyone adjusts to shorter handedness just in varying degrees.

OP is most aggro player. FU factor is activated.

Blockers.

Btw I'm not the V.




Sent from my Mi-4c using Tapatalk

+1

I think he was looking to make it a point to tell me "you may bully everyone else, but not me"

I disagree. Completely. 1/2 players thought process here isn't to assess a range its "oh man, he made another raise? I better fold, he has something good."

Case in point, a couple weeks ago I opened for $45 with AKo when a $10 straddle was on and guy to my direct left says "why so much, you better have something good" and proceeds to muck JJ face up.

Most 1/2 players are bad. Like.. terribad.

You do realize that you are agreeing with what I said...

Case in point:

Had you raise $25, he wouldn't think you have better than JJ...

Is it really this hard to understand?

What is terribad are posters who think they have these concepts figured out...lol.

I see what you're saying, that whether or not they are assigning specific hands in their head they are still classifying the strength of my hand based off my raise, but what I'm saying is they're still doing it improperly.

They may be ending up in the same place at times which would be the right place, but their path to that place is flawed. It's kind of like the "a broken clock is still right twice a day." philosophy.


In my original post, had I made a 3bet of $25 against any other player at the table who originally made it $8, with the exception of V and guy to my left I can guarantee that TT-KK/AK/AQ are flatting and AA is a flip between shoving and flatting. They aren't going to read my bet as weak and raise with a wider range as a result. It's oh he could have aces I better just call, or I have aces I'm going all in.

It's level one thinking... "how much is the bet, and what do I have"

Well sure I agree, but I never suggested that they need to understand range to have a perceived range. Of course they can have a perceived range anyway. Duh. I was making a completely different point. My point was these players are really bad (which is why I was making comments like these players don't even understand what a range is), and I made that point because I thought it was clear that you were assuming 1-2 NL players are much better than they really are. Many of these players have never heard of stuff like GTO, or even something like equity. So why assume they know how to size their 3-bets well?

I can only go by my experiences in Vegas, but just a few hours ago I was in a 1-3 game. A guy raised to $10, someone 3-bet to $20, and the guy who 3-bet had aces. And this is the type of bet sizing I've seen from these players over and over again. I'd say it's definitely more likely that you would see someone 3-bet to $20 in that spot with aces instead of $30 or more because they size their bets so poorly. When the OP 3-bet to $25, that's definitely bigger than what I'm used to seeing from 1-2 NL players. I'm more used to seeing a size like $16 or $20 with premium hands, as hard as it may be to believe.

There is so little 3-betting in the 1-2 NL games that I've seen that I don't think they put you on AK and definitely not AQ. People tend to call raises with those hands. Occasionally they don't even raise those hands if nobody else has raised. Maybe they 3-bet AK but I wouldn't even be sure of that unless the villain is more aggressive than most. I wouldn't even be confident that a villain would ever 3-bet QQ. These games are very passive.

I think you would be shocked at how passive these games are.

Should be obvious that most LLSNL players do not range well, but that's besides the point.

Point I made was whether OP was communicating that his hand is weak, AQ+ type of hands, and thus allowing V to 4bet shove "well, I am ahead right now."

So your 3bet sizing would have been right except against the guy you are 3betting? Does that actually make sense to you?

On that same note, what do I have and how much to raise?

I get the feeling that you still don't get it. You have this hard concept of what a "good" player should do, and one of which is how much to 3bet.

Why would I think 1/2 players are better than they are, and how did I assume they are?

If anything, you do not understand how bad they are. And here's a good example:

The point you can't seem to grasp is that I made the assumption they DO NOT know how to size their 3-bets well, and it is you who think the opposite.

If the assumption is that V can read ranges well and construct his own 3bet sizing optimally, then a smaller bet would make sense if your goal is to communicate a strong range.

If the assumption is that V does not understand hand ranges, then you obviously don't do anything fancy such as projecting the same 3betting range as you did with a stronger player.

But the question is whether V in this hand sees $25 as aces, not whether you see aces. That's the difference between thinking in V's shoes and only in your own shoes.

If that's the case, then maybe OP made the 3bet too big and V read him as AQ/AK.

There is also that possibility, and thesis of my point covers that.

This is when I say "it depends."

You're taking that statement out of context. We we're looking at 1/2 as a whole; not V specifically. So yes it does make sense because in general 1/2 players are not able to take it to a level 2 thought process i.e. "what does his bet sizing say about his hand". Only 3/9 players at this table have that competency, however, I'm making that assessment in hindsight. Prior to this hand with V it was only 2/9. Remember I'm only going off the word of another that he's competent and the fact that I've seen him raise one hand and limp/fold a few times in 60+ min at the table. So with very limited info on V I didn't deviate from what has worked thus far.

You created the context by stating that the sizing would work on everyone except V, so not sure how I can take it out of context.

So in your own example of someone folding JJ was because that guy was a good player, but then why did you call him a bad player?

It would work until it doesn't?

Oh ok, so bad players would flat everything except 1 or maybe 2 combos of AA, and good players would 4bet wider?

So which is it? Is V a good player (because you were going off another who said he's competent) or a bad player (in which you were "guaranteeing")?

Is there even a difference to you?

You're taking it out of context because I make that statement with knowledge that was confirmed for me after said hand with V, and like I said you were talking in generalities about low limit games, which is what I was referencing as well. IN GENERAL most low limit players don't evaluate my hand based on my bet sizing, they evaluate their own. "Is JJ worth $45 to me right now? No. Ok, I fold."

Yes V is a good player, I was aware that he could be prior to this hand, and was confirmed for me after this hand. And in this entire thread I never referenced V as potentially being a bad player, so I don't even know where you are pulling that assumption in from?

The reason I even asked about my 3bet sizing in the OP was for this very reason. I'm aware V could be a good player, and the limited info I have hasn't contradicted that. My 3bet was still 3x his initial raise which is pretty standard, so it's not like I'm disregarding info on V, and taking him for one of these passive 1/2 players. I know the $25 is good to get folds back around to him, but is the $25 too small that it will induce a 4bet a bigger percentage of the time (and with a wider range) that it should is essentially what I was trying to get at, which maybe I didn't make that clear enough in the OP. I'm not trying to get V to fold, I'm trying ensure we get it heads up without playing for stacks pre.

You were trying to get villain to flat your 3-bet and you think the way to achieve that would have been to make it bigger?

Dude started the hand with only 75 bb's, 3-bet is already 12.5 bb's. You expect someone who is a good player to have a flatting range against a bigger 3 bet than 12.5 bb's when effective stacks are 75 bb's and he is OOP?

If he had one he wouldn't be qualified as a good player anymore. Unless he doesn't consider you good and doesn't feel the need to be balanced against you in which case he might flat AA/KK as a trap to check/jam flop against you. But he's certainly never flatting TT/JJ, AK type hands to a larger 3-bet here, he's either shoving or folding.

OK, here's what you do: You make an assumption that is false, then you try to repeat it until it becomes true.

In this case, hero 3-bet to $25. That means the betting is now $25. That's it. If hero had bet $30, the bet would be $30. It's really NOT a difficult concept: the size of a 3-bet at 1-2 is usually not strongly correlated with the 3-bettor's hole cards.

Not necessarily no, that's what I'm trying to figure out. Obviously my $25 either seemed weak or he was tired of seeing me bully the table and my bet was small enough for him to make a sizable 4bet without having to commit his entire stack.

With my limited info of him I don't like stacking off pre because I will at best be in a race and probably crushed more often than not.

So I guess really when it comes right down to it, if I don't think I can size a 3bet that doesn't get 4bet am I just flatting the $8? Or am I being nit and should I be willing to stack off here pre?

Everywhere I've played 1/2, this has been false. 3b sizing is highly correlated to hole cards. In fact, its so highly correlated that usually, the 3b alone indicates top 5% of hands or better.

I think what he means is that the person facing the 3bet is only concerned about their hole cards, not the holdings of the person making the 3bet.

Obviously no further communication is possible, if you don't comprehend the difference, between the decision to 3-bet and the decision about the amount.

No, what I mean is most 1-2 players don't spend any time thinking about how to size their 3-bets. I.e. there isn't much useful information to be gotten from the size. It may have something to do with their failure to get a good parking spot.

Likewise, the size of villain's 4-bet in this case is irrelevant. He might be staying in room 87 at the motel.

I think you missed his point.

You are wrong. Perhaps this means that further communication is not possible. IDK.

The vast majority of LLSNL villains have a very small 3b range.

Those who do 3b, frequently have a bet sizing tell, size == hand strength.

There are yet more who have an inverse sizing tell.

Your point that 3b sizing is not an indication of hand strength is just wrong.

In fact, I would go further to opine that while 1/2NL tables generally have a "standard open", there is rarely a standard 3b size, that I have experienced. Even to say that 3bs are generally 3x the 2b size has rarely been true in my experience.

My point is that it is not a USEFUL indication. If we agree that 100 angels can dance on the head of a pin, that "information" still has absolutely no use.

When the guy said "why so much, you better have something good" is not indicative that he thought your hand was stronger than JJ because you raised to $45?

So this entire time, even though you knew V was good player prior and after the hand, you were still 3betting him with the assumption that he was bad?

And the argument of why you were 3betting him with assumption that he was a bad player AFTER the hand was taken out of context?

LOL, no, that was what I was getting at this whole entire time from the very beginning, and you were arguing it the whole time.

Your adjustment obviously needs work.