3b pot puts you in a lot of scenarios like this where you would achieve an almost identical outcome if villain does 4b without commiting as much preflop. Most regs have a consistent 3b sizing

I disagree, higher 3bet sizing with this hand makes 4bet ranges ALOT more damaging to our hand and position.

e:actually not sure what you meant, 'identical outcome'

That the smaller 3! gets it HU just as often as the larger 3! does and with this being our main goal (not building a pot, per se).

this is also not true, this can be shown by comparing a min 3bet to a full pot, 4bet ranges stay more constant but cold call ranges and opener call ranges are wider with a smaller 3bet

Flatting pre >> 3-bet, as a standard, IMO

I don't doubt this is true. Significantly wider, though? I.e. if we get cold called 10% of the time vs. a min-3! and only 8% of the time vs. a pot-3!, well then, bfd, IMO.

*Numbers made up for illustrative purposes.

heh, well obv its a great deal more than 10%:8% , I'd stab at a wild guess like min3!:,pot3! cold calls would look more like (12%-33%):,(8%-17%) from a theory point of view. (with these stacks)

So somewhere in between (because I don't think anyone's suggesting a min-3! here)... So figure that number and now it's just a matter of comparing the relative cold-call frequencies to the average amount we save the times we don't get to showdown (when we b/f a smaller amount) offset by the amounts we don't win because we can't fully get our stack in because of the smaller PF pot size.



I see math in your future. Good luck.

Its progressive change as the factors/ratios change, I use the 'top and bottom' rather than the middle as a proof as it shows more contrast.

now i'm confuzzled.... the point is we have to balance 4betrange damage reduction with the 'influence' of isolation when betsizing this hand.

So where's the middle ground between the two? Wouldn't it probably be somewhere in the middle of the 3! bet-size possibilities?

I don't know, this is all probably way too advanced for my PLO skill level, TBH.

Edit: I was looking at it on an isolation vs. savings when we do isolate and miss. You seem to be looking at isolation, but looking at a different comparison variable. So which is more important? Well, I suppose it depends on how often we succesfully isolate vs. how often we get 4! And in that scenario, even with your numbers, the savings from not 3! pot should more than make up for the times we get 4! bigger, right? (I haven't done the math, but at a glance that seems like it should be correct.)

The middle ground is variable to table flow, particularly our image, the skill/awareness/aggressiveness of BTN SB and BB and the width of the openers range. Thats kind of a reason why I don't like raising the fish but I like raising the good player, unless table is weak passive, because we look weak ourselves as we are gonna isolate this player pretty wide, and so 4bet ranges and cold calling ranges are progressively wider which ****s our position up. Figuring this **** out is learning to play optimal and Its too complicated for me to consciously rationalise into information aswell, especially from a hand history.



alas, 'comparison variable' This is like all the ratios, i call it relativity or meta. (because I like how poker and space/time are about sizes, forces,distances/spans, 'relation' blablabala) /babble

yes, and this is why I reluctantly muck this top gap 30% hand here unless table is generally weak passive and lets you control everything.

Is there even a middle ground? A profitable/optimal/balanced 3bet sizing here? I think with a slightly stronger hand there is,,,, but this hand feels dodgy, I want to 3bet to like 14-17$ but its just to obvious that we are isolating the fish, and even worse if we bet higher then oh look we are now committed into a losing situation when one of the other 4 players has a 5% 10% or even 25% hand and completes with a low spr or raises us,