I made a statement earlier in another thread that at first I thought was true, but upon reflection I don't think is. I said that if you plugged in your SB3BET ranges vs BTN and then your BB3BET ranges vs BTN on the same board, your strategy would not differ much.

But that got me thinking that if my statement is false, how does our strategy change from these two positions? We know the ranges are different, SB is linear and BB is polarized. But how does that translate into our post flop play?

It's a massive topic so instead of getting overwhelmed I decided to try to break it down from the beginning.

Let's first look at our preflop ranges.

I'll be using 50NL pokerstars rake micro ranges but they shouldn't differ much from any reasonable ranges.

SB3BET vs BTN - 197 combos.
BB 3BET vs BTN - 175 combos

BTN calling range vs SB3bet - 140 combos
BTN calling range vs BB3bet - 182 combos

Okay so the first thing we notice is that Small Blind has a wider range, not only that, but BTN has a more narrow calling range.

Even more so, BB3bet range is narrower than BTN's calling range vs a BB3bet!

What does this mean? The first deduction we can conclude from this is that we 4bet wider (84 combos) vs a Small Blind 3bet than vs a BB 3bet (76 combos).

Why is this? BB's range is polarized so our good but not great hands would rather call vs a BB3bet but can 4bet at some frequency vs a SB linear range.

Now let's take a flop. Since the topic is Ace high boards.

Let's look at this one. A82r

A very dry and boring flop but one that we will start with.

Do you think SB and BB play this flop the same way?

Let's solve SB3bet vs BTN first.

I'll give the SB 5 sizings: 25%/33%/50%/75%/100%



The solver likes to use every size at some frequency, but that doesn't help us much since we are mere mortals. We should just be using 1 sizing for our cbets to help us eliminate mistakes and also not complicate the game tree too early on.

To help us determine which size to use, let's look at the most frequent size. Both 25% and 33% are used the most often. Also, from an exploitative view, player's most likely play worse vs smaller sizing's than bigger sizing's.

The reason for this is because it is much harder to figure out which marginal hands you have to continue with vs a smaller sizing. So we get to put our opponent's in much tougher spots on later streets.

Let's choose the 25% sizing and see what the SB does.



The solver has us cbetting a little over 80% of the time. Again, since we are not robots. I like to simplify any bet frequency over 80% as a range cbet. So let's say we cbet range here for 25% sizing.

Now let's look at the BB3bet range vs BTN. Do you think we will cbet range here? If not, why not?



Again, the solver likes the BB to cbet a wide array of sizing's. But we will simplify and figure out 1) Which size is used most often 2) Which size population will have the most trouble against.

25% sizing win's out again. Let's see if it's close to our SB counter part in frequency.



58.2% vs 82.6%! That's an almost 25% frequency discrepancy from SB to BB on the exact same board

In fact, Ace high boards are so dramatic. That BB does not cbet 80% frequency (i.e. range bet) on ANY Ace high boards ever. Not one!

Compare that to the SB that will range cbet on many Ace high boards and we can see a huge shift in strategy.

The reason for this I believe is that most of the Suited Aces will just be called preflop from the BB, also hands like ATo/AJo/AQo will get called more often than 3bet. So there is a huge gap in Ax hands when it comes to 3bet pots.

Likewise, SB has almost all suited Aces and AJo/AQo. Which gives him a significant advantage on any Ace high board.

This turned out to be longer than I thought and I've only done 1 board. So I'll just leave it at that. Maybe this isn't helpful to the end bosses but I thought it was a pretty cool way to differentiate between SB vs BB 3BET ranges and how we maneuver post flop.

Edit: Looks like I got a little carried away at the end. The Ace high + 2 Broadway boards can be range cbet from BB but that is it.

The BB 3b range vs BU is not polarized. A polarized range is one that bets the strongest hands and the weakest hands and calls the hands in between. The BB 3 bet range consists of the strongest hands and the hands that are slightly weaker. The BB calling range is all the other payable hands plus a few strong hands thrown in for deception.

A continuing range is not polarized simply because it contains a calling range.

Edit: Ok wow, your BB 3b range is nothing like mine. Strange that we have almost the same number of hands (mine comes out to 177 combos), but you have a ton of os combos, whereas I have very few.

Fyi: our SB 3b ranges are fairly similar.

What do you think a good word for BB's 3bet range would be then?

After looking at yours, it might be polarized. Mine is not; it's linear. My calling range is "outside" my 3b range.

It was a great post, btw.

Thx Yeah here is a closer look at mine.

This is so interesting, and makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Definitely food for thought on the flop after 3betting from blinds vs button, I’ve definitely been over c-betting these types of boards from BB. Thanks!

Very interesting post.

However, why do you think we want to 3bet a polarized range vs the BU?

I always thought that the incentive for polarized 3betting was the higher likelihood of getting 4bet. This is because we don't want to 3bet/fold a hand like T9s because we have to fold against a 4-bet and it would suck to give up this equity.

The BU isn't very incentived to 4bet us, because he has position. So we have a linear 3-betting range. It's also interesting that your 3betting range has more suited Kx, Qx and Jx. I prefer to 3bet the SC's more because we can call with them if we do get 4bet.

I'm interested in your views on this?

I think we 3bet higher cards from the BB over low suited connectors more often because we are OOP. We do a lot more checking OOP so we want hands that can flop good pairs.

The problem with the low suited connectors is they flop 2nd and 3rd pair a ton, which means we can usually only call 1 street of betting and then we get blown off our hand.

The suited Kx/Qx/Jx are much better bluff catchers since they can flop good pairs and also block some of Villain's strongest range, where as the low SC's unblock Villain's strongest range.

I thought we wanted a polarized range because otherwise our calling range would be too weak on certain boards like ace-high ones for example, where villain would then be able to 3barrel bluff us a lot since our best ace would be let's say ATo or A9o.

Because if we follow your argument Im Nacho Friend then when we're BU against CO, CO should be incentivized to 4bet more since he's OOP so our 3betting range on the BTN would then have to be somewhat polarized according to your argument when in fact it isn't.

And as an exploit against villains overfolding on ace-high flops, couldn't we also cbet 1/3p at the same frequency as SB in BB?

Right, I also have a much different BB 3bet range. So that's at least 3 different ranges recommended from fairly mainstream sources I'm counting.

To see how much this affects our betting range I ran this board with 3 different BB 3bet ranges:

1) Upswing's
2) What I use now, and
3) DooDoo's.

-- Simplifying to two bet sizings for BB on flop, 33% and 75%. --

With any luck someone who isn't as stoned as I am right now can tease out the logic from all the pio blood. lets-a-go


1) Upswing BB 3bet range



= Range bet. Nice and easy


2) My new ranges I got from a pal says they're good



= Bet ~70, almost a range bet. Kind of similar to DooDoo's SB 3bet range strategy.


3) Doodoo's super-solved funky BB range (rerun for completion and to make sure we're throwing the same grenades here).



= Essentially the same as in the OP, bet ~60%.


In conclusion I think DooDoo's BB range ends up with more air on this A-high, linear favouring board, as hypothesized. But the really scary thing is that as BU we're not going to know which range our opponent is using in the BB and thus how out of line their 33% rangebet really is. If you're playing DooDoo he will be overplaying with a rangebet and we can exploit it but if he's using the less modern more bog-standard ranges then villain is cbetting correctly and we'll lose EV if we overcall.

Here is BU's defending strategy versus those ranges:

vs Upswing range - Raise 1%, Call 65%, Fold 33%
vs My range - Raise 2.5%, Call 76%, Fold 21%
vs DooDoo's range - Raise 1%, Call 79%, Fold 20%

As you can see, BU fears the more standard, linear range more, again, even as a range bet. (Go range bets and simple preflop ranges)

*******************

TLDR; I'm essentially proving the original theory that a polarized range has to check more on this A-high board but... if we misconstrue how granular and nuanced our opponent's BB 3bet range is, we may also be misinterpreting their frequency of cbets and overfolding as BU. Failing to exploit what is actually a significantly weaker range.

I think it is a fair point. But the opposing side is that with Upswing ranges or the other ranges you will have significantly more Ax in a BBvsBTN 3bet pots but much less in a BTNvsBB SRP.

So now if we know you are using those ranges we can exploit you the same way you exploit us, except it will be on Axx boards in single raised pots (which is a much more common occurrence.)

I think it is a wash either way so I wouldn't worry too much about it. For my ranges, my theory is correct. But we can amend the theory and instead focus on single raised pots for your ranges and we can come to a similar conclusion.

Some of this goes over my head.

Doesn't a lot of this depend on the range villain assigns to us? If they think we never 3-bet suited Ax, then they're going to call more on Axx boards when we c-bet.

Right, so that's why we cbet less as the BB as opposed to the SB.

At this point of my poker progression I am more concerned with my playing my own ranges well. We can and probably should deviate as the IP player since population under 3bets in the BB and to a lesser extent in the SB.

Mmmh, this is some good food for thought. As a side question, what do you think about the playability factor that tends to be better for SC's in these 3b pots?

Sorry my statement about 3betting polarized is poorly articulated.

We should 3bet a polarized range when we expect V to tend more to a 4bet or fold strategy. This is because we don't want to 3-bet/fold high equity hands that are in the middle of our otherwise linear range. Where as if V also has a flatting range we would like to 3bet them.

Wouldn't that also be true for SB ? Then why are the ranges different ?

English is also not my mother tongue, so it din't help either but now I got it, and it makes sense.

So in which spots do we 3bet a villain that has a 4bet or fold startegy for example ? I can't think of one. And what about my first argument for having a polarized 3betting range. Do you think it's valid ? It's a genuine question, I'm kind of a noob.

Not a 4bet or fold strategy per se, but when we're up against someone who has a strategy that tends to a 4bet or fold strategy. LJ vs a CO 3bet is a good example. The LJ doesn't want to flat a lot here since they'll be OOP without the initiative with a capped range. Also it's not going to a perfectly polarized range, it's just going to be more polarized than say CO vs a BTN 3bet because the CO opens wider and this means the BTN can 3bet wider with a linear range.

I don't think this is true because we still flat all our weak Axo.

Okay, thank you for explaining it to me.

Precisely, we're only left with our weak Axo so villain could bluff more since he's supposed to have all aces, including the strongest ones. We would be forced to call three barrels with ATo or A9o for example when a decent portion of villain's range is comprised of better aces than these ones. Or am I missing something here ?

Well you're right, V is going to have all his Ax, but since V opens a much wider range than say LJ his Ax is going to be less concentrated, so he doesn't get to bluff that much more. We also counter this by sometimes flatting a hand like AQo or AJo, this way we protect our weaker Ax and BTN isn't too excited about barreling Ace high boards with a hand like A9.

That's my view/interpretation anyway. Theoretically this goes back to not having to be perfectly linear or polarized, by having some sort of mixed strategy pre-flop. We keep our opponent guessing. If we always 3bet AJo+ then yeah it becomes much easier for BTN to barrel ace high boards, because our strongest aces are not in our range. If we mix them up it becomes much harder for villian to barrel on Ace high boards since he now has to be worried about this part of our range.

Look at Ceres's BB 3bet vs BTN open range. Mine looks similar to his and you can see that AJ and AQ are only partly in his range because we flat them sometimes.

It's because BB closes the action and also has more money in the pot (1 BB vs 1/2 BB) so it is okay to be capped. SB still has to deal with BB and will always be OOP so instead of calling and letting BB squeeze vs capped ranges, it is higher EV to only have a raise/fold strategy as the SB.

You're right.

I don't understand why closing the action and having invested more money in the pot means it's okay to be capped. Also, just a random thought, why couldn't we also have a 3bet/fold strategy in BB? Using the same ranges as in SB, wouldn't we have twice the winrate of SB which is what we're looking for anyway with a calling range and a 3betting range?

And I meant that in SB we're also OOP so the same case could be made for 3betting Kxs/Qxs/Jxs hands but we're stiill not 3betting those.

Because we are getting better pot odds and have a higher EV call since we can't get squeezed as BB. It comes down to the expected value of a play.

If you developed only a 3bet or fold strategy from the BB you would be 3betting too much away from equilibrium and therefore would be very exploitable to 4bets.

When/where did you get these new solved ranges? I assume they are very similar to the 500z ranges just a bit tighter and slightly more 3bet-ty