Seems like this is a pretty crucial question that could be a lot more useful than just going over specific hands. Like say someone's 3-betting 8% over a decent sample and then they 3-bet me from the SB when I'm OTB with AJTT, am I supposed to assume they have AA and fold? Can I shove a low flop with a gutshot or something?

If you think that's good, how about 7%. If you think it's too spewy what if they 3-bet 9%? Obviously, some players are more positionally aware than others and you can get part of this from other reads, but as a standard I'm interested in what different people's threshholds are here.

I haven't ran the numbers, but I'd guess 8% means more than just AA. I'd say something like <5% you can give them credit for AA. That being said, AJTT still doesn't play well against an 8% range, and it's probably best to fold.

are we assuming that the stacks are 100bb?

at 200bb, im never ever ever ever ever ever finding a fold to a 3bet with ajtt of a guy who 3bets 5%, let alone 8.

poker is a game we'd all like to play perfectly but we dont.


so call when you've got a stronger range even iff you're dominated and play tag on the flop, or something.


against guys like this you should 4bet-call when they 3bet you the first time.
because poker is fun for everyone, sorry I digress


5% is AA/KK i think or something usually

also, if you play omaha you will 3 bet 2 pair hands pre and nice wraps, its gonna happen. so under


its like 3%

Whoa I'm not folding that hand on the button hardly ever. Maybe if they 3bet around 2% and I've never seen them 3bet non aaxx over large sample.
I shove with gs if he's 3betting around 4-5% and most of that is made up of premium aaxx or rundowns, and not the ****ty aaxx oop.

Yes I was assuming 100bb.

The OOP thing is pretty huge. I'd say that when someone with a 3-bet% < 6.5% 3-bets from the blinds, they have AA/KK at least 90% of the time. And AA at least 70% of the time.

if all they are 3betting is AA, then they are probably not very good, so folding AJTT even with only 100bb seems bad. i feel like you should be calling with pretty much any 4 cards that you're opening.

most tags w/ a low 3bet % (like below 4) are 3betting more rundowns than AA oop, because they dont want to be "put on AA" and like repping A high boards w/ their rundowns

passive "fish" w/ a low % will probably 3bet a lot more AA than 5678ds

so imo its not about the % but more about the player.

hihihi - the lags are confused.

3-4 if i am not mistaken

+1

It really is player dependent. I usually assume <5% = AAxx but such an assumption would not be taking into account myself. My 3bet% ~ 5% and, without giving too much away, the % of AAxx/KKxx in this set of hands is << 100% (guess that means I'm going to have to 3bet more AAxx now). Not sure how positional dependent it is, however, because although there is the pressure to balance one's range OOP, speaking for myself, I'm definitely 3betting the bottom of my range IP. For instance, I don't think I'll be 3betting (A8)(K6) from the BB too often. Thus, the % of AAxx hands in this range is probably pretty close to being the same OOP vs IP.

I dont think you can think like this, at least not vs a decent player even if he is a nitty 3bettor. Since I assume you open a very high % OTB, a nitty blind can 3bet you for value with a lot of hands that he would have just flatted if you opened earlier.

This is correct. And if he's a decent player, he may more likely call with the worse AA hands, which are tougher to play OOP anyway, and use them for deception in the case of a dry or A-high flop.

This is an interesting topic but you're naming a very specific kind of big leak (a standard moderately tight balanced 3-bettor, i.e. high-single-digits, in position who suddenly drops all the non-AA from the blinds, even against a wide BN-opener) and generalizing it as the main type of OOP three-betting range. I don't buy it as a general rule. I do think players like this exist and for them, I'd say most of them 3bet 6-7% overall. But so do I, and my AA:non-AA ratio is pretty similar from the blinds and button.

These are not my stats, but I think this is a very plausible profile for a decent, "nitty" 3-bettor.

Say out of 600 voluntarily played hands, Hero 3-bets 30 of them.

In position, he 3-bets all AAxx, some KKxx, many rundown hands, and some double-suited crap. So, after those 600 hands, in position he 3-bets:
8 AAxx/KKxx
8 rundown
4 double-suited crap.

Now, out of position he only 3-bets the better of the AAxx hands, the best KKxx hands, slightly fewer of the rundown hands, whose playability is less positionally dependent, and no double-suited crap. So out of position he 3-bets
4 AAxx/KKxx
6 rundown.

So, in this would-be profile, the percentage of AAxx or AAxx/KKxx hands are actually the same IP or OOP, but the rundown hands are more represented OOP.

+1 to this, in general.

But it's definitely highly stakes / player dependent. I think that this is a good default assumption to operate from at below 2/4 stakes when you're facing an unknown or someone you don't have any meaningful reads on yet. At 2/4 and above I'd be willing to assign a more knowledgeable player competence profile, and that he'd be willing to 3 bet preflop with a wider range of hands looking to create a low SPR where he can leverage FE with a big bet on dry boards (since he's "supposed to have AA") / stack off when he hits the flop reasonably.

I still don't think there's much light 3 betting OOP going on even with an 8% range. I don't see a lot of double suited trash / one gappers in their range all that often unless someone's on tilt or you've been abusing one particular player and he's looking to make a statement. Even so, I think AJTT with a suited A is probably too good of a hand to just fold to a 8% 3 bet range (assuming 100 bb stacks and you're in position). With the propensity of players to stack off light since they 3 bet and feel compelled to maintain the initiative, you can get yourself into some profitable postflop situations even if you do take the worst of it pre (but you already know that).

I kind of skimmed this thread, but there was a point two or three years ago where my 3bet % would've been around 5%, and would very very rarely include any AA** at all, because I was being 'tricky'. I don't think i'm the only person who has thought like this, either.

And what did you determine from this period of trickiness? Do you feel it fit into your overall gameplan or that it confused regulars / TAGs / fish / whoever?

This issue is going to be ridiculously player dependent and not stats dependent. Not everyone who has a 5% (or whatever else %) three betting % is going to have the same range, in some cases it's not even close.

it worked fine, but I was missing value.

OK, there actually was a specific hand that inspired this. In this case, I had the SB 3-betting 8% over a decent sample, but I'd seen them 3-betting in position a pretty decent amount and I had enough hands outside the database to know them to be a pretty nitty reg.

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
PL Omaha $6(BB) Replayer
SB ($742)
BB ($120)
UTG ($432)
UTG+1 ($975)
CO ($651)
Hero ($2,107)

Dealt to Hero Q T T A

fold, fold, fold, Hero raises to $21, SB raises to $69, fold, Hero calls $48

FLOP ($144) 9 4 8

SB bets $96, Hero raises to $432, SB raises to $673 (AI), Hero calls $241


Given the extra read there, is it still OK to call pre and shove this flop? What if villain's 3-betting 7%? What if villain's 3-betting 6%?

Also, while I acknowledged that different players have different levels of positional awareness, do people really think you can't make a "standard" OOP range for people with a 3-bet % as low as 5%? I mean yeah, it's nice to have extra reads, but a lot of times, I've just got 300 hands on someone from 3 months ago and I really won't know anything except what the stats say. My standard against someone who 3-bets that low is definitely to just assume they have AA from the blinds, give up the vast majority of my ace/pair hands preflop, and then play as if they have AA once we get to the flop and beyond.

where does one find 3-betting % in poker tracker omaha?

You don't. It's one of the key features in HEM that got a lot of people to switch over even though it's still a fairly buggy program.

Seems really spewy against a nitty reg

board: 9s4h8c
Hand Pot equity Wins Ties
AA** 72.78% 436,133 1,091
AdQhThTc 27.22% 162,776 1,091

Didn't you just say not to assume that someone has AA/KK out of the SB when they're 3-betting 5%? If so, why would I make that assumption when they're 3-betting 8% just based on seeing them 3-bet in position a few times? Seems like your totally contradicting yourself here.