Yo,

Let's see if I can get a response from the void that is the HU forum here!

I play low stakes heads up, and I'm trying to construct an exploitative range vs any villain who is overfolding to 3bets and not making significant adjustments (not calling down more, not 4betting more). I'm trying to work out what the basis of my 3betting range should be against such an opponent.

Here is something like my normal BB defend range vs a 2x small blind open (above image), and one proposed adjusted range for the situation described (lower image):https://ibb.co/rZpXgb9


The logic for the second range is this:

-VS a high F3B (greater than 60%) we need very little equity to 3bet, especially if we size down to 3x and villain does not adjust, for it to be automatically profitable from the folds we will get.

-We do not, therefore, want to waste our strong hands by putting them in this 3bet range, since they will most often just get folds

-If we are able to defend, say, 5% more total hands from the BB in terms of our VPIP vs villain, which we would otherwise think too weak to play at all, but which we can hope to get folds with by 3betting exploitatively, that is a significant gain.

-Nevertheless, we don't want things to be completely hopeless postflop if we are called, so putting suited aces and kings with low kickers in our 3bet range enables to us to make some top pairs (which must nevertheless be played with caution) and strong straights/ flushes when we do get called.


On the other hand, I have some concerns about this proposed adjustment.

-First, it seems like it should be too dramatic, just on face value. It is obviously going to put us in a lot of difficult positions postflop. It doesn't feel right not to 3bet AA, KK for example.

-Second, it means that we are going to be playing smaller pots with our premium hands (AA, KK, etc). This is however somewhat outweighed by some further factors:

These hands will mainly be getting folds otherwise, so we will likely be getting to play more average sized pots with them vs a few much larger pots
They will be unexpected and deceptive in single-raised pots
It will make it more difficult to play against our much stronger range postflop for SB

What do you guys think about this proposed adjustment, or what would be optimal in such a situation, against such an opponent? Remember, this is not someone whose game is very adaptable or who is making the appropriate adjustments. It is, however, possibly also relevant to mention that I have to beat a very high rake, but with 'no flop no drop'.

Personally Id rather use a range like this: https://gyazo.com/4bd2dec7f8045b14b1fd1e9b7dcfce34

Still want the opportunity for a big pot with our big hands and obv theres gonna be times where we miss out on coolering villian if we only flat big hands pre, but i yeah it can be a strat vs some villains but at 60% f23bet im not flattin TT+.
Im half asleep not sure if the range is optimal its something ive been very interested in myself as well which is why Ive posted.
Its a hard thing to construct because a polar 3b range for a 60% fold to 3bet is goin to be different to an 80% and so on and im wondering where I should start adding from first; suited blockers Kxs? or playablilty 86s 57s 64s? or just junk 83s?

Hi mate--

Thanks for the great reply! Amazed to get one in this forum, especially one that isn't daft!

I can totally understand your logic for your ranges and for including more value hands; I have the same concerns, but I'm still not totally convinced. I think that there is an argument to put in the very very top of your range, but I'm still not sure.

Because suppose villain is opening 80%, folding 65% to 3bet. Then he's calling or 4betting with (presumably the top) 28% of all hands.

First, if we have 30% equity with our bluff 3bets, and are 3betting to 3.5x, we only need 58% folds to autoprofit. If we have literally 0 equity we need 78% folds to autoprofit. If villain folds the same % to 3x 3bets, these numbers go down to 55 and 75% respectively. On average we are likely still to have at least 30% eq when called, even against this very strong range. Actually, my suggested range vs the top 28% of all hands has 38% equity. Given then we are likely to underrealise by c5% out of position (although this is partly counterbalanced by the fact that we have initiative and that our opponent is clearly a nit), we remain in a comfortable position with more than enough equity.

Now, in strict GTO, which assumes an unchanging strategy for our opponent, it would be a winning strategy to 3bet 100% of the time if V was folding >55%. Some strategies might be able to exploit him even better, but this would still be hugely winning. In fact, it's EV would be something like this:

0.2*0.5bbs (%villain folds SB * SB)
+
0.8*0.65*2.5 (%villain opens * %f3b * his (assumed) 2.5x open)
+
0.8*0.35*5*0.3 (% v opens *%call3b * pot * our eq)
-
0.8*0.35*5*0.7 (% v opens *%call3b * pot * his eq)

= 0.1+1.3+0.42-0.98
=0.84

So, discounting the possibility that he 4bets, assuming we have 30% realisable equity when called, our EV in this spot is +0.84bbs. That's a massive winrate right there.

You write that "a polar 3b range for a 60% fold to 3bet is going to be different to an 80% F3B etc". But I'm not sure that this is the case, or if it is it is only to a very minor degree. As soon as someone is calling too much, in a game more generally, we start betting no bluffs; as soon as they are calling too little we start betting all our bluffs. In real life (as opposed to GTO scenarios) we don't want to give our opponent the chance to cotton on, so we might make less absolute adjustments, but this is the theoretically correct strategy.

The same should go for 3betting. It's not as simple a situation as betting the river, since the route to *highest* value isn't always clear (as I said above), and the paths are mutually exclusive (you never forgo potential value betting the river instead of checking and taking a showdown), but there is an extent to which as soon as our opponent is observed to be either folding too much or too little to our 3bets, we should make relatively binary adjustment. I think this is a strong argument *against* having ranges which are that different for a, say, villain folding 65% to 3bet or one folding 80%. Some difference, of course, but very little.

So the next question is whether we should 3bet or flat our strongest hands. KK+,AQs+,AQo+ have 67.5% equity vs Villain's top 28% calling range. Let's work out the value of holding this range in the BB if we 3bet the hands:

0.2*0.5bbs (%villain folds SB * SB)
+
0.8*0.65*2.5 (%villain opens * %f3b * his (assumed) 2.5x open)
+
0.8*0.35*5*0.675 (% v opens *%call3b * pot * our eq)
-
0.8*0.35*5*0.325 (% v opens *%call3b * pot * his eq)

= 0.1+1.3+0.945-0.455
=1.89

So this is the value of 3betting that range in the BB. The question then becomes: do we think we can win more than 1.89bbs on average by flatting these hands? Personally I think we can...

What do you think of this analysis?

Messed up some of those calculations. They should have read:

<<
0.2*0.5bbs (%villain folds SB * SB)
+
0.8*0.65*2.5 (%villain opens * %f3b * his (assumed) 2.5x open)
+
0.8*0.35* (0.3*8.75) (% v opens *%call3b * our EQ * half pot)
-
0.8*0.35* (0.7*8.75) (% v opens *%call3b * his EQ * half pot)

= 0.1+1.3+0.735-1.715
=0.42

So, discounting the possibility that he 4bets, assuming we have 30% realisable equity when called, our EV in this spot is +0.42bbs. That's a massive winrate right there.
>>

AND

<<
0.2*0.5bbs (%villain folds SB * SB)
+
0.8*0.65*2.5 (%villain opens * %f3b * his (assumed) 2.5x open)
+
0.8*0.35*8.75*0.675 (% v opens *%call3b * half pot * our eq)
-
0.8*0.35*8.75*0.325 (% v opens *%call3b * half pot * his eq)

= 0.1+1.3+1.65-0.80
=2.25

So this is the value of 3betting that range in the BB. The question then becomes: do we think we can win more than 2.25bbs on average by flatting these hands? Personally I think we can...
>>

I also want to be very clear about the assumptions made by these calcs:

-Villain is folding 65% to 3bets, flatting the rest
-From OOP we underrealise by 5%, except when we have premium hands, when we realise our equity fully
-Our EV is calculated as if play ends postflop, and we simply get our (conceivably realisable) equity share of the pot as it reaches the flop

Of these, the last is of course the most troublesome. But there are competing factors which probably balance out:

+On the one hand, pots grow exponentially and in proportion to their postflop starting size. This will lead the 3bet pots to grow bigger than the single-raised pots.

-On the other hand, this factor is significantly discounted when we are so often behind postflop and will be forced to fold, or to pot control, since we will want to play quite conservatively when called

+On the other hand still (we have many hands in this argument), Villain has a very strong range that he will want to make the pot bigger with when called.

-On the fourth hand, Villain is a nit and a weak player preflop (given his overfolding) so he is unlikely to be aggressive or difficult to manage postflop, so he is likely to be passive and ineffective at the above.

I am therefore reasonably content with this simple model providing some evidence for the ranges I am advocating. What do others think?

Yes I get what you are saying but a 60% fold to 3bet is not extremely high and id want a better range of hands then vs an 80%+

Basically my thoughts are I'd 3b a lot more junk vs say an 85% fold to 3b as im only gettin called by premiums and its just going to be a shut down with all my junk hands, because maybe im even including 95o 82o and so on.

Whereas vs the 60% fold to 3b when im gettin called more often id rather have a stronger range then previously mentioned and with hands that have some playability e.g flush draws, gutshots, flopped straights etc.
I wouldnt want to risk being called with the junkiest junk by the higher frequency caller, as although our range has 30% equity, we dont want to keep gettin in 3b pots with hands with a serious lack of playability.


Yes however I think the calculation is way more complex for 3betting our strong hands as you would have to include:
-How often villan calls check raises otf in srp
-How often you are getting three streets of value when you check raise (AA or any premium) otf in a SRP
-How often the villan even cbets so you get the chance to check raise and build a pot.
-How much this works out in bb, Are you going to get 100bb in a single raised pot? From what you have described to be a reasonably nitty villain.. I dont think so.
-How many rivers will you be able to overbet jam and get called with worse when he started the hand with a huge 80% range?
compared to bet/bet/shuv in a 3bet pot when he has a much tighter range; overpair vs overpair, overpair vs top pair.

People also tend to play worse in 3bet pots, so other then this preflop maths you have done there is much more reasons why you should be 3betting youre stronger hands pre. There are merits to not 4bettin the strongest of youre ranges vs certain villains, but personally I think they should always be 3bet.