when your OOP to the 3-better is 4-bet or fold a viable strategy due to the rake? there are so many close hands that suck playing oop so I will be interested to hear some thoughts. (excluding sb vs bb and when you're in the bb. also when some random guy cold calls)

at lower limits yep
esp in anon games
you'l end up having to fold a bit more but w/e, if you 4b wider for a smaller size you're not doing ip that many favors
don't think the difference in ev is that noticeable one way or the other but if you want 1 less spot to study, it's perfectly acceptable imo

thanks for the reply!

what sizing would you think is reasonable and what hands would you add to the 4-betting range?

if you don't have a calling range and thus an incentive to polarize, you just go linear instead
i.e. all the AQs/KQs/AJs and such
sizings wise, somewhere in the middle, can't go too small cause then ip can defend any 2 and we don't benefit from FE at all, can't go too big cause we're not polar and it doesn't make sense
mby 21-22x over 8x/9x 3b but idk what the optimal size is, you'd need to run a pf solve for the model with oop being locked to 4b or fold at the correct rake cap

ok thank you

I would say no because typically at micros people's 3bets are quite low.

Each spot is different, but I think there are a few hands that will clearly have a higher EV as calls than they do as 4-bets or folds.

e.g. If I open TT or 99 UTG and get 3-bet by someone that has position on me, I'm pretty confident that calling and set-mining is better than 4-betting or folding. (Assuming the price is right and stack depth makes calling viable).

One reason is that villain's 3-bet range in the micros is usually quite strong, and you'd be in no-man's land if he 5-bet jams on you, but you're almost guaranteed to win a stack if you flop a set vs his overpair/TPTK in a 3-bet pot.

You shouldn't do a lot of flatting when OOP vs a 3-bet, but for some hands it definitely makes sense, imo.

ok thank you for the insight

4bet/fold is definitely a viable strategy. You'll pay less rake, you get to 4bet wider since you'll be using a linear range, and it simplifies your strategy. Best part, you don't have to play a capped range OOP.

However, I don't think it's the "optimal" strategy. Like Arty said, some hands play much better as a flat than a 4bet. This is especially true for medium pocket pairs and hands like AJo-AQo, KT-KJs, QJs, etc. You'll also end up folding more hands overall (despite having a wider 4bet range).

I think 4bet/fold is more viable for EP and less viable for LP. For example UTG facing a HJ 3bet - yeah 4bet or fold will work well there. CO facing a wide BTN 3bet- nah you've got to flat some hands here.

To clarify, those exact hands are just generic examples. There's times where 4bet ranges get wider/tighter, etc.

Something I forgot to add is that raise/fold strategies in general are most effective against oversized bets. For example, if BTN opens to 6bb the correct exploit is usually to raise/fold with almost no calling. Similarly, against oversized 3bets, the correct counter would (probably) be to 4bet/fold.

I think what people don't fully realize is that in high rake environments, calling 3b oop is a marginal proposition at best assuming we don't get to over realize compared to how a solver can manage playing itself

this is utg open 2.5x, btn 3b 8.5x, solved in simple preflop for 50nl rake



hands in yellow are calls
as you can see, we more or less have a calling range to accommodate for AQs, some AJs/ATs/KQs combos and some mid pairs
our flatting range would only be narrower with higher rake, up to the point where there is none to speak of and the spot is one big 3b/4b/5b shove game

I would argue that it's harder to humans to show a profit playing mid pairs and the increase in our 4b range with suited broadways is unlikely to be exploited by our ip opp, since he doesn't know exact ranges. Sure, the hands in yellow should be higher ev to flat at those freq but to me it just feels like such a narrow range to work with that our strat could easily be simplified to 4b or fold w/o much ev loss. We could simply keep the same 4b size and fold more of the weaker part of the range or lower the 4b size a bit and keep all KTs+,TT+

in the model wee're folding 64% either way, having to ditch a few mid pair combos isn't going to make that much of a difference, we'd be folding 67-68%, which is a lot, but it is what it is, 64% doesn't sound that much better...

some of you might be surprised by what utg likes to rfi in this rake model, turns out blockers to getting 3b are very important when there is a lot of incentive to 3b and less to flat. in loose passive games I'm sure this would not be the case.

forgot to mention, we're 100x deep. at 200x I'm sure thing would look differently. ~150x idk, mby not so much.

thanks you for the points coach tombos

ionutd that solve is very interesting I'm definitely going to give 4-bet or fold oop in early position a go

still not sure if to play 4-bet or fold co vs button. i usually open for 2.2bb if I get 3-bet to 7.5bb or lower I think I should have a calling range but any higher I think 4-bet or fold (not sure tho)

If I'm calling a 3-bet when I'm OOP in the micros, I'm basically gonna have AQs, sometimes AJs and/or KQs, JJ (mix between 4b or call depending on positions), and call TT/99, sometimes 88*.
I snap-fold AJo, and AQo is either a 4-bet ("bluff") or a fold. Dominated offsuit aces are problematic hands to flat with OOP.

* This narrow flatting range of AQs, some AJs and KQs, TT, 99, (and some JJ/88) is pretty face up, but I think all those hands do (slightly) better as calls instead of 4-bets. If you call any wider, you probably don't make money in most positional battles. I see a lot of people doing stuff like flatting 77, KJs, 98s or 87s OOP vs 3-bets. I do not see those calls being profitable.

yeah this seems like a good solid range and at the micros, your narrow range shouldn't be exploitable due to large player pools.

the rough stats for 500z vs 50z rake models for utg vs btn 3b

call 31.5% / 4b 22.5% / fold 46% - lower rake
call 12% / 4b 24% / fold 64% - higher rake

did a quick sim on 44 weighted flops, aggregate ev of individual hands in a fictional utg calling range vs a 10% 3b otb with a 50nl rake cap



not all combos are 100%. if you need to call 6bb, you need ev 6+ to profit. vs a 7.5x 3b, you'd need 5+

only reason not to have a calling range is that you're already polarized(which you are not polarized when opening preflop) and you're facing a range that you can shove 100% of your value range against for max ev.

so if someone opens and you 3 bet polarized in the cutoff, maniac button 4 bets 1/2 his stack and original raiser folds? I'm probably dumping my draw range and shoving everything else if the original opener folds.

If you're not polarized and the call doesn't leave you with at least a pot sized bet there should be hands that earn positive ev from calling in your range vs strong raise and reraise strategies. This is because in order for your hand to be a reraise facing action behind you, it must be more profitable than calling. To illustrate this, think of the extreme case of AA, the strongest hand there is. How profitable do you think calling is with AA? hint: its ridiculously profitable.

As hand strength decreases, so does the profitability of hands until the (reraise/call) threshold. Notice that these are the hands near the middle of your range and remember that polarized ranges don't have a middle.

Hand strength continues to decrease as we reach the bottom of the profitable calling range at the (call/fold) threshold. There is a crossroads here for good players(if you're not good then you will not be good at estimating these values. thus you should focus on estimating these values based on the ranges involved):

there are more than two types of postflop players, but they all leak ev in one of these two ways:

a) they give too many free cards(too many by definition meaning that given the starting ranges and resulting postflop equilibrium, these players allow you to realize more ev because you see more cards and you pay less on average to get to showdown(unless they use large river sizing to compensate in which case you've found a tough tight tag that isn't to be trifled with when you're holding mediocre cards). the exploit is to call more hands on the (call/fold) margin.

b) they bet too much postflop, which denies equity to the hands that need those free cards the most. The exploit is to fold more hands on the (call/fold) margin.

these categories can be further split by defining exactly which hands this particular opponent makes mistakes with, which creates exploitive opportunity postflop vs each opponent type, but this is already long winded.

good luck.

Ionutd makes a great point about the rake. A lot of flatting hands are close to break even and get pushed into a fold by the rake. Thanks for running the sims dude!

Arty- is probably right about AJo, but I think AQo can flat 3bets when ranges are wider, like CO vs BTN for example. Overall I agree that flatting ranges should be very tight.

--
I think the size of the 3bet is crucial to the equation. Just looking at CO vs BTN 3bet charts from Zenith:

CO response against small 3bet: (75% pot-sized 3bet)



CO response against large 3bet: (125% pot-sized 3bet)



Legend:

I believe zenith ranges are based on 500z monker solves

So the Zenith Ranges assume less rake in that case.

But just to be clear, my point wasn't the exact ranges, my point was that the size of the 3bet drastically changes the viability of a 4bet/fold strategy.

just read this it was very helpful thank you

also ionutd thanks for running the sim very helpful also

Note that in ionut's sim, AQo had a lower EV when calling than AJs, KQs, or even ATs and A5s.
AQo is OK as a 4-bet "bluff", due to the blockers, but it plays pretty horribly as a call. In the micros especially, you get coolered by AK on Axx flops so often, so you're actually better off with hands like AJs or KQs that can make flushes and nut straights.
I probably sound like Doyle saying this, but AQo is way overvalued by many players.

Not gonna lie I'm surprised pocket pairs and KQs, AXs all do better. That's insightful, I might be overvaling AQo.

To be fair though these are UTG vs BTN 3! ranges which are already quite narrow. Against a wider range flatting AQo becomes more attractive. Both Zenith and Snowie recommend flatting AQo at some frequency (CO vs BTN/SB/BB), (BTN vs SB/BB) and (SB vs BB).

solvers don't much like flatting offsuit hands vs any 3b, both ip and oop and when it comes to playing oop, esp vs unkown opponents, I think humans do significantly worse than the solver does playing itself.

it's true, the 3b size is crucial, if you rfi 2.5x and ip makes it 10x, there's no way you can have a +ev flatting range unless you take good hands from the 4b range, but then your 4b lose ev

if you're facing a 7.5x 3b tho, as you can see, a good part of that range in the gto+ sim is good to go and you don't need to play 4b or fold anymore

another note, that sim was with btn 3b an utg open with a 10% linear range, i.e. btn plays 3b or fold. overall ev of oop' range was 5.5

What I have learned from this thread is my calling range is too wide OOP. Also when I'm facing larger 3-bets of 8.5bb + OOP (when I open 2.2) I think I should be 4-betting or folding, but 7.5bb and bellow I will have calls, and a quite tight calling range when it is 8bb.

I think this is accurate anyway if you think this base strategy needs some tweaking let me know.