Thanks. =) Glad to be of help.

I guess I should say that one of the parts about 3betting that is least precise for me is how to estimate/quantify the value of flatting for deception. Previously I talked a bunch about different factors you'd take into account when deciding 3bet vs flatting, but obviously I didn't really supply a formula because firstly I'm not entirely qualified (I just wing it, to be honest), and it's too complex anyway. I think though stoving against their call 3bet range and estimating how likely they will pay you off with dominated hands is not too hard, but the value of flatting AK for deception is a lot more hazy, because if a player is aggressive enough to value cut themselves into your AK, they're probably also aggressive enough to give you trouble on boards where you miss, making it hard for you to float or see showdown. Possibly this is the "extra work" that I can be putting in by using CREV.

We have to remember that even if we don't get called by worse much when we 3bet AK, the value of taking the pot is still significant... 4,5, or however many bb is a lot. That said, that's partially why I think 3betting AK for mostly fold equity has so much more value in 6max; when your edge is expected to be low, an edge like that because big, but against players who are generally much weaker (in live), there's often even more to be won by flatting, or not just that, by letting your opponent define his range with the betting lead.

We generally think of the betting lead as a good thing... it can be, but a bad player with the betting lead can basically turn his own hand face up, specifically players who don't think much about balance, and just bombs value hands, and checks to give up. This is why in general I think I flat a much wider range live vs weaker players than I would against stronger players or online, but again, this edge is one that is a lot harder to quantify compared to when you 3bet because ranges and actions are far more defined. Most of the times in 3bet pots, people usually have one of several options anyway: a) jam it in against a bet b) peel one street and fold c) trap

In a 2bet pot, lines are a lot more varied, and in the theoretical decision tree analysis I was talking about, there would be a lot more work to be done, but essentially, that also means there are a lot more spots for people to leak in, and for us to exploit at.

I've had people worry that not having AK enough in your 3betting range could really hurt your balance. It's a good idea to have some frequency of AK to 3bet in your range in most situations. In practice though as with all live spots, it's hard to really arbitrarily decide when's the time you 3bet or not 3bet AK.

A counter to this alarm though, is the fact that there are many combos of AK compared to KK AA, so even if you only 3bet offsuit ones and bluff, you've still got a healthy range of big Ax in your range, not to mention if you 3bet AQ and Axs sometimes too (which can be good in itself or hit two pairs). This means even if you flat AK a goodly amount you'll still have decent coverage of Axx boards and can rep a fairly reasonable value range.

Outstanding work Sol.

I think all this balancing stuff is great but imho it's not needed or even counter-productive at live $1/$2. People don't know wtf they're doing, and they definitely don't keep track of what you 3-bet with the last 5 times. Maybe 1 guy does but he's 1/10th of the table.

So far I've realized with help from others that:

1) If you 3-bet AK with 50BB, you're committed to calling any 4-bet or shoving any flop. So basically at 50BB it's a stack decision which mostly hinges on villain's range. NITs/OMCs are AA-KK, so don't 3-bet them. It's OK to 3-bet looser players and get it in. Dead money is also a factor, if there's more dead money then that adds more reason to 3-bet.

2) With AK you will connect with the flop only 40% of the time.

3) Given the general opening range of live $1/$2 players, vast majority of it is pairs. So vast majority of the time even if you get it all in pre - you will be flipping. The only hands you dominate are weaker Aces. So why flip? If you want to flip go to the roulette table. So it seems calling and outplaying fish postflop seems like a more +EV thing to do. So unless there are other factors like a really loose raiser or a lot of dead money - CALL. Some here will say, well you gotta 3-bet AK to make sure you're not only 3-betting AA-KK - I say no, $1/$2 fish are galaxies away from keeping track of that.

25%?!?!??!?

Table change obv

3b AK is a question on what our 3b value range will include.

In general....I find that 3b JJ+/AK is most optimal in live full ring games as our opponents are generally stations that have a hard time folding and over value hands.

The way to approach op question is to think in ranges and why we bet/raise/call/fold etc.

AK whether suited or not holds a ton of value/equity pf and post flop. The benefits of 3b hand in position and out of position are both positive. We need to realize that we are getting called the vast majority of the time we 3b in live games. So we thus must exploit this overwhelming tendency to call too light and/or oop by including AK into our "value 3b range". Rarely will we be 3b bluffing in live games as fold equity is minimal and your leaking money long term by 3b light or in other words....unless you're 3b for value or have some serious experience with a given villain 3b light is generally a bad idea.

AK certainly has a ton of value and should be included in you're 3b range pf. It creates a very profitable situation for us in the long term.

The final bit of info is to be sure that you have a plan vs a given villain when you 3b AK so you are aware of the most logical decision vs V's 4b range. Understand that 3b AK and getting 4b is a completely different situation to consider....we cross that bridge when it comes and make sure
We have a plan.

No worries. The regulars who are working on their game will read this, do their own homework and incorporate what works in their game to up it. The vast majority will superficially read it, most likely take something out of context, lose a couple of big hands and think, "LOL, those idiots in LLSNL don't know what they are talking about." To use this information successfully, you already have to be good at figuring out ranges, understanding position, and understanding image.

The fish don't gather as much information as the experienced player, but they do have memories of recent hands. They'll often draw the wrong conclusion from it. But thinking they don't notice anything is a bad assumption. If you're 3betting 25% of the time, they'll notice that you aren't 3betting only strong hands.

I think it's somewhat presumptuous to say things that people don't notice or that ALLL LLSNL games are full of stations or everyone's only 50bbs. There are plenty of games that get pretty deep or have a larger buyin. Like I said it all depends, but to make a blanket statement like this is silly and is capping your potential, because it's definitely untrue that you would 3bet QQ or AK against someone who would make a remark like "you've never reraised once" and fold AQ face up, or similar, or you have AA and they peel JJ QQ and fold to a flop bet. Sure you can argue they are nits and would be more likely to fold, but I feel that a lot of posters underestimate the power of image simply because they aren't as experienced in gauging or manipulating it.

Just having talked to a lot of regs I've played with, I feel like there's a strong general consensus I get a lot more action than anyone in the games I play at 1/2 1/3 2/5, and this confirms with my personal observations wrt people's call down, spazz, and stack off ranges too.

Also some people seem to imply that "there's no need to balance". I feel like you've missed the point of the thread; we don't 3bet a bluff range just because of balance, but also because there is immediate EV in bluffing a lot of times, but we need to choose the correct and optimal range to do it with.

I've read a lot of people who've said that 3betting air at LLSNL is unnecessary and spew. This is definitely not true. Not to be mean but I feel like you're leaking in your a) 3bet sizing, b) 3bet spot selection c) postflop play, if you can't find profitable 3bet bluff spots at all. Obviously you can win without ever bluffing, but because people play such weak ranges and turn their hands face up with either live tells and the lines they take, it's actually very easy sometimes to put pressure with 3bets and barrels, and it ALSO helps your image greatly.

It takes experience to find the right spots, but even just taking the very simple of approach "I'll go ahead and 3bet bluff when clearly everyone has a weak range and is probably quite willing to give up their hands against small to medium amounts of pressure" is pretty good.

Obviously don't 3bet bluff huge stations, but there are lots of stations that station vs small bets... but fold to big ones. So those are fine to bluff too.

Ayup.

I 3-bet pre with AK pretty much always because I want to be the aggressor and because there is more value in AK 2 or 3 handed than in a multiway pot. When you hit with AK, it's very hard to fold, but in a multiway pot it is far more likely to be way behind.

The other day at 5/10 UTG raised to $25. I'm UTG+1 with AdKd, and I'm never flatting here because I don't want to play this 6-way with horrible position, and I don't want to be put to a difficult decision for a lot of chips when a player 3bets behind me (giving them an edge in aggression if I don't 4-bet). So I raise to $75. Folds around to button who I pegged as a winning "live" player (possibly plays underground games for a living). He calls. Small blind tanks a bit and then folds. UTG calls.

Flop comes Kc5d2c. UTG checks (this doesn't hit his range much), I check, Button bets $240, UTG folds. Buttons bet here is pretty much always a King or a flush draw. I don't think he bets sets that hard, and is unlikely to call with 55 or 22 to my 3-bet, so I ship it for $1000....which reps either KK or the flush draw (more likely). Villain doesn't need much time to call, turn Tc, River 5h. Villain mucked but I have to assume he called my 3-bet pre with a dominated K (perhaps KQ or suited Kx). BTW, the SB folded 55 (quads). Had I just flatted and seen a flop multiway this hand wouldn't have been nearly as straight forward to play as I would have to worry about other hands that have me crushed (making it far more difficult to extract value).

AKs plays very well multiway if you know how to play multiway with marginal hands. Also he can't be very good if he flatted KQ there instead of 4betting or folding. Anecdotal evidence where you get paid by one of the only hands that pay you off doesn't really prove anything.

Also lol at k or fd. He could easily have other air or pockets turned into bluff.

Very often 3betting AK just turns your hand face up and loses you value.

Saying all live players don't fold dominated hands is a huge simplification. There are also tons of nits.

I only 3 bet AK against loose openers when there are multiple callers after. And even then, if its suited I may not as I want Kx, or Qx, of the same suit to come along cheaply so I can stack them. AK Is so often overplayed. I've folded it PF when I see a bet and a 3 bet by a tight player.

Yes, you are correct. Sorry, I failed to mention that in this recap but that was my read as well.

Especially if you are a tight player, but I 3-bet a wide range of hands, and as such I would lose value by not raising AK. I think a better discussion may be had in 3-betting AQ, which brings me to my next example which could serve as evidence for your position (maybe a bit against). MP raises to $20, gets 2 callers in LP and then good tight winning player calls from SB. I'm in BB with AQo and make it $120. Folds to SB and he calls pretty quickly. At this point I know his range is nearly always AK with some JJs sprinkled in (albeit, I think it takes him a bit longer to call with JJ). Long story short, he flopped a King, so flop went check check and he bet turn to take it down. However, if he doesn't flop an Ace or a King I win this pot always. On the flip side, if he raises with AK from SB, I fold always because his raising range is going to destroy AQ.

True, which makes 3-betting with any two cards quite profitable if you choose your spots well.

I realize this is a 3-bet question, might be wrong place, but you dont have to answer either.

Are you letting your 3-bet range determine the frequency at which you 3-bet with regard to the situation (whether it is or is not a good spot to 3-bet) or do you shoot for a much smaller frequency and then choose hands to 3-bet that are in your range?

That may not be a clear question. Same question asked a different way:
We decide on a 3-bet range in that we will 3-bet these certain hands if certain conditions A B and C are met. This would lead to a frequency of 3-betting determined by the distribution of cards and conditions. One would then need to adjust their range to hit a desired frequency or do you do it some other way?

Hi guys, some great discussion in here particularly by Sol. I think this is a great topic to broach.

I'm in the camp of not usually 3-betting AK. Sometimes the games I play in run a little tight/passive, and 3-bets tend to blow opponents out of the water. I'd usually rather have 5-way action with $50 in the pot than 2-way action, frankly, since vs. most opponents' calling range vs. a 3 bet is comprised heavily of middle and high pairs and I have to improve anyway.

A few more factors I consider when presented with the opportunity to 3-bet AK:

1) I usually play 2-40 spread rather than NL, so I have to more strongly orient my play toward showdowns since I can't make huge bets. Consequently, a pot that gets inflated preflop is pretty likely to end in seeing who's holding the cards that make the best five card poker hand.

2) Even if I do win the pot preflop with a 3-bet, how much did I win? If I take down the blinds and a $10 raise, that's a pretty wimpy result that I had to put $30 at risk for (or so). Now if there's a raise and a few callers, I'll 3-bet AK all day and be happy with dragging a pot without a fight, but against one player I'd rather simply flat call and hope to get another opponent or two. I'm not going to get trapped calling huge bets and huge action if the board comes KQJss, or AJJ, after all.

3) As mentioned before, there's a very wide range of hands that we absolutely crush that will call a single raise but not a 3-bet - ATs, KJ, etc. - and these are the hands we need action from. It's not important to us to get action from 99 et al - in fact, I don't know how much we want their action AT ALL - but we've got to do everything we can to make sure that Wally The Whale doesn't make a huge laydown with his King and Ten offsuit, and that means not blowing him off of his hand with a monster 3-bet. (If Wally will call anyway, well, now that's another story.)

I had an epiphany the other day, and this seems like the right place to discuss it: AKs is a suited ace, and there's no law that says I have to play it as anything other than that, especially in EP. In fact, I've been thinking that from EP, it may make sense to "play the option," playing the hand as a drawing hand or a TPTK based on preflop action.

Basically, I've been contemplating limping AKs in early position with the intention of 3-betting any preflop raise. If it limps around, I'm cool with that. I've got a really big drawing hand with a high SPR. If I don't hit TP+ myself, I'm guaranteed to flop at least 6 and possibly as many as 18 outs to beat TP. So all lines are on the table: I could lead, c/f, c/c, or c/r, depending on table dynamics and board texture. In other words, if I flop a draw, I can build the pot otf instead of pre, and that's where I want to build it anyway with a drawing hand.

On the other hand, if the pot is raised pre, I can 3 bet it, squeezing any limpers in between and setting up the right SPR to commit with TP+. So I can hammer away when I hit TP+, and maybe I even get credit for a set when I do it because most people at LLSNL don't l/rr with anything except KK+. AND if I show down AKs after this line, anyone who is paying attention goes "Hey, this guy l/rr with less than KK+," and maybe that helps me get my KK+ paid off down the line. AND if my 3 bet pre gets 4 bet, I can fold, as I'm way behind the range that 4 bets my l/rr line.

Just to throw out a hypothetical hand to illustrate, lets say effective stacks are 100bb, and I pick up AKs UTG. Option 1: I open to 6bb and get one caller, with blinds folding. Now I'm HU OOP with an SPR a little over 7, which is too probably too high to commit with TPTK and too low to get full value for drawing. I'm in No Man's Land with Option 1. Option 2: Let's say in the same spot, but I limp. Now I get two callers plus the BB, who checks his option. In this case, I've got a big suited ace with an SPR over 22--not a bad spot to be in. Option 3 (or 2a?): I limp UTG, two overlimps, and then BTN raises it to 7bb. I pop it back to 20bb. Let's say both limpers fold, feeling the sqeeze, and BTN calls. I'm OOP in a 3 bet pot, which isn't great. But my SPR is less than 2, and I can be reasonably sure I'm no worse than flipping (most KK+ is 4 betting) and that I'll pretty much know where I am without investing any more money. If I hit TP+, I can probably just bet and take it down because my hand is overrepped and I could very well get credit for as much as top set. If I hit a big draw, I'm going to have a huge chunk of equity against even an overpair, and I can semi-bluff, with either a lead or a c/r. If I whiff, I can c/f, leaving my opponents thinking wtf.

Am I missing anything here? Seems like this is the way to go in this spot, and it doesn't seem to depend on villian reads. This works whether the table is limpy or aggressive, doesn't it?

The only thing you can't do with this line is you can't let it limp around and then go nuts when you hit a bare TP. If you get an A high raggedy flop and you're OOP in a limped, multiway pot, you have to tell yourself "I basically have A8s here. Don't go crazy." To do this line, you can't change plans in the middle of the hand.

Sol I totally agree, the consensus is that their is no need to balance or 3bet bluff in llsnl and its far from the truth. I have always had a small bankroll. So I choose not to unless I'm up for the night. My point is ill be sitting there missing value not squeezing or applying pressure to weaker players. If you have a bankroll just play poker.

People always complaining that the games are getting tougher. They think their villains playing tighter after reading a book makes them tough or better. Playing abc, limping implied odd hands oop and calling raises with implied odd hands is a recipe to get owned by an aggressive player like sol.

As for 3betting AK its a good way to gauge how the table reacts to 3bets. That's what I use it for. 3betting in llsnl is rare. We can't look at other players and gain reads on 3bet lines because they only 3bet AA/KK.

Flatting AK had it's place even in 6max vs aggressive thinking players because then you could actually value-raise if you hit TP+, and often it would induce spaz plays from those player types.

TBH I kinda liked this discussion at first but now that I think it through... nah, I'm likely going to 3bet AK near 100% still The core problem is lol live players are just too passive postflop by and large and don't seek to thin value bet enough with their hands to make trapping with AK worthwhile on our end imo. Live players on the other hand play much worse in 3bet pots.