This is about the only NL game I seem to enjoy, so I might as well try not to be terrible at it. I think this may be basic game theory stuff--let's present it as a three-question poll. (Too lazy to make a voting poll, and besides, there are three questions.)

Assume 7-handed with no obvious weak spots, and unmentioned players have folded. "It depends on the player" is an obvious and ultimately unhelpful response to all three questions.

Hand 1: UTG+1 raises to 3bb, CO calls.
UTG+1 draws 1, CO draws 1.

At this point,
A) UTG+1's range is stronger than CO, because CO would've 3-bet better draws.
B) Their ranges are roughly identical
C) CO's range is stronger than UTG+1 since he would need a better draw to call the raise
--------------------------------
Hand 2: UTG+1 raises to 3bb, CO raises to 8bb, UTG+1 calls.
UTG+1 draws 1, CO draws 1.

At this point,
A) UTG+1's range is stronger, because he couldn't call the 3-bet without a premium draw
B) Their ranges are roughly identical
C) CO's range is stronger because he 3-bet.
--------------------------------
Hand 3: CO raises to 3bb, BB calls.
BB draws 1, CO draws 1.
A) BB's range is stronger because CO can open pretty wide
B) ranges are roughly identical
C) CO's range is stronger because BB got a cheap price so can call with weaker hands

Thanks for your thoughts!

I've played some, but it looks like you're already WAY ahead of me .

I have the SS1 book in pdf. There's a decent chapter on NLSD I could send you if you're interested?? Good math stuff too.

i know 'it depends' sucks as an answer but its often the right one.

Gut feelings:
1. B with a slight inclination towards A depending on what your definition of the players are. You're making the assumption that people 3-bet good draws. Smaller stakes players don't always, and higher stakes players do it sometimes to balance with other hands they cold call with.
2. A in a vacuum.
3. A but I almost always would rather be CO here.

ehh, noob here but I'd say

1. B
2. Lean B
3. A

But this game has been awhile, but I consider it to be in it's infancy. It's started to pick up speed with the 10 game and WSOP tourneys. So it depends..but things might be changing and evolving

In 2004, 3 bets in NL Hold'em were always just AK, and QQ-AA lol. That has sure changed

IMO

B, A, A with none of them being that close though it obviously depends on the class of play/where you play.

B
B
A

Though the middle one I think could be A or B.

If it were 7 times me playing situation 1 would be B, situation 2 & 3 would never exist (always flatting in situation 2 in CO and always 3betting in situation 3)

Could u send it to me please?

Very interesting. I would go:

I) : A') UTG+1's range is (very slightly) stronger than CO [and CO would've 3-bet some strong draws]

II) do you think UTG+1 will find enough folds to the 3-bet to make this very small 3-bet size reasonable? If the 3-bet were significantly bigger I'd say A)

III) A)

I don't understand that. You state that you are 3-betting only pats and snows in II) and 3-betting all your draw-1 range in BB in 3) [so... flatting 0% out of the BB vs CO?]?

This has been quite helpful, thank you all (and more responses are welcome, of course). I guess in general it makes sense that the OOP player should have a stronger range to make up for being OOP. Somehow I thought scenario 3 would be closest to equal, but I guess not. Now I just have to figure out what those ranges are, figure out some game theory with unequal distributions, and other fun stuff.

Soep: I'm with Jean, I find it hard to believe you flat all your draws. Even though my results at this game are terrible, I found they improved significantly when I started 3-betting in position a lot. In fact I'd rather do the exact opposite of what you claim to do (3-bet all draws IP, and flat all draws from BB).

Jules: thanks, I have read it.

Jean: Yeah, I guess I should've gone with a 10.5bb pot-sized raise for this example.