Yes, keep in mind what hands will play well multiway. So when I do flat in the SB I am emphasizing hands that I like playing multiway (such as 88) and avoiding hands that I think play poorly multiway (AQo I'm looking at you).

I'd rather not get into flatting 4-bets here.

I am making some live play and some theory stuff for CardRunners this month as I had 3 weeks off. Not sure when they'll release the videos but at least a few should be coming soon.

Does opening small UTG invite more preflop calls or 3bets from players IP? Also, do 6max vs FR dynamics play out here in some ways, in that there are fewer players to fold out or get through who have position on you in 6max vs FR?

Just curious, how aggressive are you squeezing in these scenarios? (I'm assuming that also depends on stack size of villains? Or no?)

It depends on all the usual factors, but I would squeeze more aggressively than I'd 3-bet.

I wanted to buy this book months ago, but when I came to this thread I saw it had numerous errors so I didn't buy it. I'm wondering if there is corrected edition out now that I could buy without having to read 1000 posts to see if the book was proofread and math checked.

The book is good, read the book, think critically about it and use this thread to improve on the ideas. No book of this sort will be "correct".

About Snowie btn sizing - it really depends on the rake. Snowie takes rake into considerstion and if you minraise the btn, there is more action from blinds and more postflop play ending in more rake paid. So snowie rather raises more to prevent this. If you set the same situation in 1/2 and in 10/20, you will see that Snowie changes his raise size.

Unfortunately there is no corrected version and there will be errors, but I think (though I may be wrong about this) the majority of them are in the pre-flop section which I think you're better off skipping anyways. As mentioned before, pre-flop doesn't model well and as people call 3-bets and 4-bets I don't think the ranges I originally made are very good now.

Good point. When I analyze Snowie I almost always do it at 1/2.

Still thinking about this... if your range is stronger UTG, isn't it more +EV to build a larger pot? Not sure why Snowie is finding it more +EV to raise smaller. Is it just to get more action with a stronger range?

If your opponent plays optimally, he cannot loose more then the blind on average with his range (since he can always switch to "fold everything" strategy, which looses 1bb per hand). If your range is so strong that he is forced to fold very often even against minraise, than you are winning close to theoretical maximum for minimal investment. You wont be able to build a larger pot against him and have the best of it, you will just threat that, forcing him to fold even more, but also for larger price on your steal. And Snowie thinks its not worth it...

Makes sense.

Would this same logic then apply to SB vs BB Unopened pots. i.e We should look to open raise to 3x to take down the pot PF and avoid the extra rake encountered as a result of the BB defending wider and seeing a flop more often against a minraise?

I open 3x on the Btn but in SB vs BB unopened pots I minraise. I had been encouraged to minraise by the fact that we only need folds 50% to break even. This allows me to attack more villains and I can steal with a wider range, including some trash. It also gives me a better chance to outplay weaker villains postflop.

Comparing opening to 3x and a minraise here I am slightly more profitable with the minraise, however this may be as a result of the 3x opens being older data and I have since improved playing this spot.

Minraising from SB is good only against very bad opponents. If somebody good sits in BB and you minraise him, he has: big pot odds, position, high SPR etc so he probably can defend a lot of hands (much more than 50%) profitably. The rake idea would apply, but it would be a minor factor. I think that limping the SB is the latest trend in those situations and Snowie uses a mix of limps and 3x if I remember correctly.

Yeah SB probably needs a mixed strat of limping and opening a lot bigger than a min-raise IMO, but using multiple ranges is hard so most people pick one size. If you're going to pick one size I'd go at least 3x though.

Is this against a 2bb or 2,5bb open?

That's kind of why I'm now avoiding PF ranges as you just get bogged down with too many details (opening sizing, mixed strats, etc).

That's my default range for what I usually look to 3-bet despite it being a 2x or 2.5x or 3x open. I change it a bit as necessary due to the opening size, so you might see me get a little bit more aggro against a min-raise for example. But I don't think it changes all that much.

The cold calling range (in the big blind) is what changes drastically based on opening sizing.

Yeah this is the "Oh.." moment I already had today which is awesome.

But still have lots of figuring out to do about preflop ranges. For example I think I'm flatting a bit too little in bb against EP/MP, because I am not that comfortable playing postflop against them OOP. Mostly because I haven't yet figured out if I'm able to have a donking range against them and what it would look like. So when I'm just xc:ing my vulnerable SD-value hands, V's overcards have so much equity which they can realize, because I really don't have a proper donking range.

So would appreaciate if you could point out what a reasonable flatting range would look like in bb against EP/MP.

PS. Is there any clear line in your CR videos, that start being outdated, or where new viewers should start watching? I started watching from around 2011-2012 videos because I don't really want to miss anything from your videos and am OK with relearning some concepts with the newer videos.

what % of the 3bet range is it optimal to continue with against 4bets? correct me if im wrong, but 4bet pot odds allow us to call with hands that have 26% or more equity...

calling a 2.2x 4bet after making a pot sized 3bet against a 3BB open, so 12.6/(23+23+1.5) = 0.265

...meaning that if we took your SB vs BB ranges, we would be continuing with the entire 3betting range, as the weakest "bluff" hands in it have at least 30% equity against the 4betting range. Am I missing something?

Also, would an optimal 5bet shoving range be equal to an optimal 4bet calling range?

This isn't how equity works. You're basically trying to convert equity into expected value, which is only possible if you're already all-in. Since you're not all-in, your opponent can keep betting against you and force you to put either a lot more money in the pot or fold.

That's the reason why you have to check-fold ace high hands or weak pocket pairs on many flops despite the fact that they regularly have 40%+ equity and you're only facing a half-pot bet.

So to answer your question, no one knows how many 3-bets you need to defend against 4-bets and it'd be impossible to solve just by look at the equity of hands alone.

Ok, I also have some questions about your 3betting ranges...

Do you determine the width of your 3bet range based on the range of the opened position you are 3betting against? If not, then what else? I see you 3betting 17% SB vs button, but only 13% BB vs SB, so youre 3betting more while out of position vs a tighter range than in position vs a wider range...doesnt make much sense to me. Thats assuming that you open less on the button than in the SB? I see that youve drastically increased your SB opening range from the ranges in your book, has the button range changed too or is it still 47%?

The BB can call, with good pot odds, closing the action and playing in position against the SB. So many calls will be highly +EV and it will be better to call with many hands that could maybe also 3bet profitably, but with lesser EV. The SB has worse odds, does not close action and doesnt have position, so calls are much worse and the 3bets are better alternative.

That is a compelling argument for not flatting in the SB, but it doesnt necessarily mean all those hands are now 3bets. It seems like we would be exploitable to 4bets or just being played at back more successfully, if villian knows our 3bet range is much weaker than "normal"

Another reason for wanting to 3bet from the SB against a Btn open is that if we flat we leave ourself very vulnerable to squeezes from the Big Blind. The Big Blind knows the Btn is opening a wide range and then the SB signals that he is weak by flatting. The SB is then left OOP in a 3Bet pot against the BB if he calls. If the Big Blind doesn't squeeze he is still offered very good odds by the SB flatting and this just invites trouble into the pot allowing the BB to flat with a lot of speculative hands if he chooses.

Of course the Btn may start 4betting wider if he notices the SB is 3betting his steals alot. Getting 4bet doesnt mean we lose the hand. We can 5bet jam if we think the Btn has a wide 4Bet. Or as I have heard Matt say we can call the 4bet knowing that we are going to be in a lot of difficult postflop situations but we can just "deal with it" when they happen.

The likely scenario is that the Btn doesnt have much experience of 4bet pots either and he will also be in difficult postflop situations where he doesn't know what to do and will also have to just "deal with it". Calling the 4bet only has to be more profitable in the long run than folding our 3bet.

Poker is a dynamic game, you dont have to 3bet a hand in the SB just because a hand chart says so, if you are uncomfortable with the table dynamics you can fold. It may be correct to have a mixed strategy with alot of these hands, folding them when the situation suits and 3betting them when conditions are more favourable, such as playing against weaker opponents.

Thanks for the responses, but I think you guys might be missing my point..im familiar with the reasons for not flatting in the SB and 3betting a merged range instead. Of course we can still win the pot after being 4bet, and the button probably isnt an amazing player.

Im just wondering how 3betting wider in the SB vs BU or CO is considered GTO or close to optimal when compared to 3betting in the BB vs SB with a tighter range, while also having the advantage of position. The 3bet to opening range ratio is much higher in the SB vs BU than it is in the BB vs SB, and im looking for an explanation for that, because if the SB vs BB ratios are optimal, then the SB vs BU ratios would seemingly be not so unless im using outdated info on the button opening range.

Im looking for the logical reasoning behind having widely different 3betting to opening range ratios in two different positions, further compounded by positional advantage/disadvantage. If I know why Matt is recommending these seemingly contradictory ranges, I will likely improve my own ability to construct ranges.

I didnt miss that part of guestion. What I was trying to say is that opponents range is just one factor and you seem to pay too much attention to it and not enough to other factors. And the fact that you have position doesnt mean that you have to 3bet more. You have also more incentive to call and use your pot odds. You could 3bet more in bb vs sb than the sb does against btn and it would be profitable, but its even more profitable to just call in the bb. So you end with a wider calling range and narrower 3bet range in bb and the other way for sb.

Regarding flats in sb - i personally do not flat against 3x opens, but i flat against 2x opens. I have better pot odds and the bb overcalls more often and squeezes less often.

The SB 3-bet range is linear (only good hands) and the BB 3-betting range is more polarized. A range that consists of only good hands is going to be able to 3-bet wider than a range that consists of good hands and meh hands.

Obv I have no idea what the GTO ranges are (and you probably use mixed strats and multiple bet sizings anyways, so at best I'm just making a simplified guess) but I don't think there is a contradiction in my ranges. It makes sense to me for BB to 3-bet a tighter polarized range and the SB a looser linear range.