In general, yes. We can have a flatting range if BB is a fish though obv.

Not quite.

So in general, the 3b strategy I've been taught to implement here revolves quite a bit around fold to 3bet.

If villain CALLS a lot of 3bets: - I will want to 3bet more linear
If villain FOLDS to a lot of 3bets: - I will want to 3bet more polarised.

For e.g. vs a reg folding 35% to 3bet, I just won't bluff 3bet. No point 3betting 47s vs this player because we're going to get called too much. And our equity probably isn't that robust vs his calling range which can still dominate us.

For e.g. vs a reg folding 80% to 3bet, my SB strat will involve a relatively tight 3b for value range and then all the junky 3bet bluffs as well.

Yeah, but not just from BB. We can remove the bluffs from our SB range also and 3b depolar there as well.

So basically the only thing I'd change about your approach is to 3b more linear from SB vs good BTN who doesn't fold much. No need to bluff with **** esp if we're gonna get called a lot and we'll be left oop in a 3b pot with ****.

What would be a good fold to 3bet% from LP? Assuming we steel very wide.

BTN in general should defend ~40-55% at the micros I think. Depends what RFI you're playing too and who's 3betting you.

How much of this is relevant for zoomwhere we can assume players in LP are stealing less and fast folding some playable/marginal hands?

Balance is more important in zoom because you'll have smaller samples on players. But if you have population reads then by all means abuse them.

that is extremely untrue

Fundamentally the format makes no difference. Ofc population of your player pool has a great bearing over your general strategy.

I liked this thread minus when these guys started feeding on each other.

My default opinion, subject to change, is that we should be defending blinds ~25%-55%. (obviously tighter in SB than BB).

We should defend with a mixture of calls, even in SB, and 3Bets.

Ranges should be polarized, except in BBvsSB when we close the action and can play a wide range vs a wide range and have position.

I'm currently torn on the question of whether or not it's a leak not to have bluffs in our general ranges in cases where villain never folds to 3B. I think technically it probably is though. If our range is balanced, it doesn't matter what villain does or doesn't do. We can't be exploited. That said even though we can't be exploited, it doesn't follow that this is the most profitable line. It's probably better to adopt a exploitative approach in this situation. So we should break even bluffing into someone who never folds (assuming we play perfectly), but we'll probably make money taking a different path.

That's bad.

We don't necessarily want to play a polarised strat in SB vs BTN.

Generally vs someone who doesn't fold much, you want to widen your value range and have fewer bluffs. So it's more of a depolarised strategy. That said, some good players higher up play a different strategy, but I think this is the most common one and easiest for uNL players.

That adjustment is pretty much what I described above.

Sorry for replying this late,I'll try to do a quick summary about what has been talked in relation to 3bet pots.(And for the fact that TDA probably thinks I'm hopeless to understand this hehe)
Please,correct me if I'm wrong.

From SB:
If villain (the guy otb) isn't able to realize that we are going wide,depolarized,ONLY for value(without the bluff part of our range)then we can keep doing this.If villain IS able to realize we are going only wide for value without bluffs,he can start folding and 4betting against our not-so-strong 3bet range.Therefore,we can start adding bluffs to our depolarized 3bet range,because he will start folding.If villain NEVER folds to a 3bet (F3BET stat of 0% over 1kkkk hands) then we ONLY go depolarized,wide for value without bluffs.

From BB:
If villain ISN'T able to exploit our flatting range because we're only 3betting wide,depolarized,for value,without bluffs,then we can keep doing this.
If villain IS able to realize this,and start exploiting our flatting range,we should be willing to 3bet a polarized range from BB,WITH bluffs,as villain will have a weak range postflop,and our flatting range won't suffer.

You are not applying the concept correctly. If you *know* someone is folding less than the amount making you indifferent you will play a pure strategy - this case folding 100% of your bluffs. You have been untorn.

Your bluffs are not going to be EV+ here, even if your whole range is going to be >=EV0.

I don't understand "untorn" in that context. To be clear I never suggested that bluffs should ever be +EV (at least not intentionally), but I was under the assumption that they should break even or close to it over time. I don't agree with the idea of playing a-EV hand to increase the profitability of other +EV hands. That seems wrong to me.

On the other hand your point has highlighted a conflict in how I'm thinking about this. If we were playing GTO we should expect EV=0. This implies that bluffs have to be -EV as you stated, but if this is true what's the incentive to bluff in the first place?

No need to 3b depol from bb really

If both are playing GTO bluffs are EV0. Bluffs can be EV- or EV+ against a strategy. Bluffs make the other player indifferent, without that our strategy can be exploited and is not GTO. Without bluffs the villain doesn't have to bluff-catch, which lowers our EV with value hands.

Thanks this makes sense to me.

Yeah but this also means they are floating and making a lot of moves post flop in many cases too. How do you deal with this?

interesting debate

If they're using appropriate frequencies postflop, their ranges are wider so we can a) vbet a wider range profitably and thus b) bluff more. If they're not they're probably bad so we can just use a very wide value range.

The point i was making is that once guys start to call 3bets w 76o, A2o and other random bad hands, there post flop play means 0 as they will never be able to make that profitable in the long run when i have 99+ AQs+ in my range. Now clearly if villain is a fish and will never fold top pair w A2o, 3bet bluffing 53ss becomes v bad. However if he can find the fold button post flop, i would much rather 3bet junk hands + value hands, bc our overall BB strat will have higher EV imo as you can play profitably an insane amount of hands from the BB once you combine your flatting and 3betting range. This is due to the fact that flatting 53ss is not profitable vs most in the BB but you can turn a profit by 3betting it.

a reasonable starting point for bb defense would be to estimate villains calling range, plug it into pokerstove or similar. for heads up pots (say btn opens, sb folds, you are bb) calculate odds (cost to call/total cost of pot if called, for example if btn makes 2.5x its 1.5/5.5 = .272) then add some to that number to account for being OOP and the rake.

obviously some hands 'play better postflop' (or are better at realising equity, for example K2o is not good at realising equity as if you don't flop a pair it's pretty tough to continue and you have to often fold the best hand/your equity)

also can make some adjustments depending on your skill level/comfort postflop and the same with the opponent, stuff like villain cbet %, barrel frequencies etc. also as mentioned the smaller stakes have higher rake in bb/100 so generally defending a bit tighter is correct although the average opponent is weaker too so it balances out a little (although you are likely going to be to the lower you play)

so for example btn opens 50%, he makes it 2.5x, 27.27% is the starting point, we decide to make it 37% as a starting point because of rake and being OOP

22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J4s+,T6s+,96s+,86s+,76s,65s,A2o +,K5o+,Q7o+,J7o+,T8o+,98o is top 50.2% on stove, ofc villains don't necessarily select their % based on stoves 'top' but it's just an estimate for this example

against this range you just see what hands have 40% or more equity then don't fold those (you can 3-bet some of these hands, and/or some hands outside of this range)

but again make some logical adjustments taking into account the considerations above, for example folding K2o (which has 41% against that range) due to poor playability but calling 64s (which has 37%) since it plays better. from there call wider/tighter and see how u go depending on everything else. gl

thanks for sharing…

I personally would rank K2o higher than 64s vs a 50% range but that's just me

Maybe not K2o but definitely hands like K4,5 etc since the kicker can play

Pretty common misconception but as David said, it's a lot to do with playability. Suited cards are just simply going to play a lot better in spots like this.

OMG you been around too long

thanks for your post, kind of hope u do a 10k post.

Would like to ask you if these are easy folds to a 3x open?

I would honestly say the misconception is that hands like 57 69 play better than high card hands especially when ranges get wider.

What would you rather call with 54o or K2o?