Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Online No-Limit Holdíem Cash Discussion of no-limit holdíem online cash games of all stakes, including pot-limit and cap games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2012, 04:39 AM   #1
anaconda disease
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 789
some thoughts on 3 bet pots

hey guys saw a cool post about 3 betting yesterday so thought id do something similar
My general guidelines to 3 betting
The first question to ask when deciding to 3 bet is whether we will be polarising or depolarising our 3 betting range.
Polarised range- is when we 3 bet the top several percentage of hands EG AK, QQs+ and some random junk hands EG generally the top of our folding range. What I mean by this is the best hand we fold to an open in that spot makes up the top of our folding range. For example if A5s is the worst hand we call a CO open with OTB then A4s should be the first hand we 3 bet as a bluff. So the polarised range in this spot may look like AK,QQs+ and A2s-A4s, K2s-K6s ect..
Now that we know what a polarised range looks like it is important to talk about the frequencies of bluffs versus value in this range. For example say an opponent opens 35% of hands in the CO but only plays back (4 bets) with AK, QQs+ when 3 bet from the BTN. We should be weighting our 3 bet range towards a higher percentage of bluffs and tightening our value range so that we cooler his value range. What I mean by this is that if he only 4 bet calls it off with AK, QQs+ then we should only be 3 betting KKs+ for value because QQs and AK are an underdog to his stack off range (Stove AK,QQ+ versus AK and QQs if you donít believe me). If this is in fact true which I would expect to it to be with most tight Regulars at the micros with no history then we should clearly be 3 betting widely with junky hands as a bluff to steal from there wide opens and high fold to 3 bets. So a realistic range for us against this player might look like KKs+ and 10% of junky hands too weak to call with. I once read sauce 123 write somewhere that if we canít 3 bet 5 bet AK for value then clearly we should be bluffing our opponent an absolute ton
If our opponent is somewhat observant or just on the looser side of life, they will begin to 4 bet bluff us, as they should. Clearly now we can start 3 betting wider for value and less as a bluff. Now we might include JJs+ and AK into our value range and only 3 bet bluff 6% of the time.
When our opponent becomes really aggressive 4 betting us a ton to our 3 bets then we should start 3 betting with the intention of 5 betting all pairs and maybe have no bluffing range. In the first example our value comes from our opponents folding too much to our 3 bets. When our opponent is this aggressive the value comes from them 4 bet folding off 21-27bbs the times we 3 bet 5 bet. People may argue that well what about all the times we run 22s into JJs well clearly this isnít good. However we still have 20% equity and we take down so much dead money the times our opponent 4 bet folds that this play is still +EV.. I can further explain this example if people wish
*Important thing to note is when we should use a polarised range. In the examples above there was no talk about playing against opponents who call our 3 bets OOP. The reason for this is because if our opponent calls 3 bets OOP we should be adopting a depolarised range and scraping the ideas listed above...
Hopefully this gives you some basic understanding of a polarised 3 betting range feel free to add more to what I have said or argue against any of the points I have madeÖ
Depolarised range- The basic idea behind a depolarised range is that the whole range consist only of hands in which we think we can use to extract value from our opponents. This type of range should be the one we use most commonly at micro stakes and will always be the range we use against bad players. A basic depolarised range may look something like any Broadway and A9s+ as well as some pairs 88+. This range basically contains big cards which do well equity wise versus wide ranges. I would adapt a depolarised range either IP or OOP when I thought my opponents most likely response to my 3 bet was to call. Bad playerís most likely response in poker will be to call and this range does best equity wise versus there wide calling range making it far more effective than a polarised strategy.
Now onto some more frequencies. How thin we bet for value in any situation in poker generally depends on how wide our opponent will call us down. For example if our opponent will call us with King high on the river then we should value bet Ace high. This translates directly into 3 betting. If our opponent will call us preflop with 87s then clearly 3 betting A7o or A8o for value crushes there strategy or even J8s would be an acceptable hand to go for thin value. People may argue that J8s although is way ahead of 87s equity wise we are crushed when called by hands like JTs. This is true however the times we are called by better is made up for by the times they open and fold to our 3 bet, call our 3 bet with worse, call our 3 bet with better and c/f to a cbet and generally them just playing worse than us on later streets and paying us off with worse hands. If they never fold to our 3 bet then J8s(bottom of our value range) in general does well enough against most ranges to still make it profitable with a cbet on the flop. The point I am trying to demonstrate here is that when we 3 bet thin for value we are occasionally going to get called by better hands however it is clear that this situation is still very profitable. As I mentioned above how thin we go for value depends on how wide our opponents will call our 3 bets. Most bad players will call with all PPs, SCs, one gapers and broadways against these guys we can 3bet thin for value with a very wide range EG any Ax and plan on taking down a ton of pots OTF. Hope this makes it clear why we should 3 bet versus bad players a ton and why it is so profitable. Ask if you donít understand
Clearly there are some other adjustments we can make here. EG if our opponent never folds post flop to our cbets then we can tighten up a little to ensure we always have an equity edge against his range when going to the flop. In the J8s example a lot of the time we might have 40% equity versus there hand but the fact they play so fit and fold on the flop makes our equity go up. (Skill is equity) if our opponent is a calling station then clearly this play is far less +EV and possibly even -EV
*Important to note that we will always use a depolarised range versus bad players both IP and OOP.
The next major time when a depolarised range is used is when we are in the blinds 3 betting a regular who opened OTB or in the CO. Important to note straight away that we could use a polarised range versus regulars who open in late position to. I recommend though versus regulars that a depolarised range will be better because our opponents most like response to our 3 bet when they are in position will be to call. If there response IP was to raise or fold then polarising would be good. The reason why depolarising is better than polarising is because if we 3 bet say 75s as a bluff and they call us with ATs as expected then clearly there killing us with equity+ position. However if we 3 bet AJs and they call with ATs then then clearly were doing a lot better now. The interesting thing about 3 betting from the blinds is that we can end up in a bit of a stand still where we have the best hand some of the time AJvAT and then they have the best hand AQvAJ. The only reason why we can win from this situation is that there opening range to start with will be a lot wider than ours. Therefor if we are only 3 betting broadways and they are only calling with broadways then we win because they open and fold the times they donít have a Broadway whereas when called our ranges have 50% equity versus each other. Position also is clearly a factor here but thatís another story. This is clearly just a theory example it is very unlikely two peoples ranges will be exactly the same like that. Now imagine if they call us with a wider range then just broadways. Now we start to have a bigger equity edge but make less from the times they open and then fold. So our profit now comes from thin value bets post flop and taking down the pot OTF versus a weakish range. If on the other hand they only start to call us with the top 50% of broadways and folding the rest then clearly we should start to adopt a polarised range because more of our profit comes from them opening wide and folding a ton to our 3 bets. People might be thinking how the button wins from this example. Easy they just have to tighten up there opening range. Then we canít 3 bet as wide so we play tighter. When they realise this they should widen there range again. Hopefully this explains how when our opponent does one thing we should do the other and vice versa.
Against the better regulars that understand that our range is depolarised they may call our 3 bets with big cards some of the time as well as 4 bet bluff us, and 4 bet for value some of the time. This is clearly puts us in a tough spotÖ I have a fairly good idea of a counter strategy but will leave this one open for other peoples input!!!
Position Ė Iím only briefly going to discuss position because I have already written a really long post and briefly gone through it already. Basically against a bad opponent we should only ever 3 bet depolarised because we know they only 4 bet the nuts and call us with tons of worse hands. Position versus these players doesnít matter. Regulars we should be polarised IP almost always unless they are bad regulars who will call 3 bets OOP then clearly depolarising is good to take advantage of our initiative and position. OOP as discussed versus regulars we can polarise or depolarise depending on how our opponent reacts to our 3 bets IP. To start with though depolarising will generally be better
Table dynamics- can be very important when deciding whether or not to 3 bet. Here are a couple examples where we may decide to 3 bet and where we may decide to call instead. Say we are OTB and a fish opens in the CO. There are two solid regulars in the blinds more than capable of squeezing or taking a flop with a marginal holding because of the fish presence. We hold JTs should we 3 bet? My answer would be yes. We can definitely get value from worse from the fish however this is not my main point. The important thing relating to table dynamics is that by 3 betting ourselves we isolate the fish heads up and get to play a pot solely with the fish and not the regulars. To take this one step further say if we held AAs here and we knew that the regular in the BB knew that we 3 bet isolate wide versus the fish and only call with marginal holdings then we could call planning on back raising when the regular squeezes not only coolering his whole value range but also getting value from his bluffs. The main question to ask in these situations would be can I get value now? If the answer is yes then you should go one step further and ask can I get more value later? If the answer is also yes then clearly calling will be better.
The other example I have is imagine we are in the BB and a regular who folds a lot to 3 bets opens in the CO and the fish calls OTB. We hold ATs should we fold, call, raise? I think we should raise. The regular will fold a ton to our 3 bet and we expect the fish to call with a ton of junk which will fold to a cbet OTF or call down with worse. Some people may squeeze with junk here which is likely fine versus two regulars but with the fish presence 3 betting junk becomes a lot worse. To take this one step further swap the seat of the fish and CO around. Now when we squeeze we are likely to get two callers because the fish will call our squeeze and induce the regular to come along based on the amazing odds they are being offered. In this situation ATs may become a call a preflop and we should only squeeze with stronger stuff we can get cleaner value with in a multiway pot.
Hopefully these two examples give some idea of how table dynamics can severely alter our decisions to 3 bet and with which range.
*feel free to add another example of where table dynamics play a part in our decisions to 3 bet.
Stack sizes- are the final thing I am going to talk about. Back to the first example I gave in table dynamics I talked about how we might consider calling an open to induce a squeeze from a regular. Letís say the same example we are 200bbs deep with the fish and the regular only has a 100bb stack. Even though we know the regular might be highly inclined to squeeze we should still go ahead and 3 bet the fish. If we answer those questions I recommended before its clear we can get value later from the squeeze but itís clearer that we can get heaps of value now from the fish because he is so deep and will make so many mistakes post flop. If on the other hand the fish was only 50BBs deep calling is likely better again because majority of our value comes from the regular.
Another example might be say the fish has 30bbs and we are considering whether or not to 3 bet from the BTN with JTs. Some might argue that this should just be a call as stacks sizes are so small that we lose any fold equity(FE) post flop to be able to 3 bet this thin. I tend to agree with this notion and would generally just prefer a call in this spot solely because of the stack sizes.
With this said this brings me to my last point. As stack sizes decrease we lose FE and therefore we canít 3 bet as thin for value. As stack sizes increase we gain more fold equity as our opponents now have a lot more to lose in big pots.
*important to remember that these are only examples and depend on how the people at your table are actually playing.
I wrote this in like an hour so there is likely a few grammar mistakes and I know everything I preach is not always correct. I hope you guys take something from this as I really enjoyed writing it. If you like it let me know and Iíll write a post about defence against 3 bets. Oh and clearly this is not everything about 3 betting merely touching on the surface..
Peace out
Anaconda,
anaconda disease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 04:40 AM   #2
anaconda disease
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 789
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

copy and paste it into word far easier to read
anaconda disease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 04:52 AM   #3
PeoplesElbow
banned
 
PeoplesElbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On Government Benefits
Posts: 10,847
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

paragraphs, not even once.
PeoplesElbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 04:57 AM   #4
skraper
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
skraper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 6g1p
Posts: 10,240
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

holy wall of text batman

this may or may not contain good info

no one will ever know with this formatting
skraper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 05:15 AM   #5
supern1le
newbie
 
supern1le's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Europelol
Posts: 27
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Quote:
Originally Posted by anaconda disease View Post
Hey guys saw a cool post about 3 betting yesterday so thought id do something similar.

My general guidelines to 3 betting
The first question to ask when deciding to 3 bet is whether we will be polarising or depolarising our 3 betting range.
Polarised range- is when we 3 bet the top several percentage of hands EG AK, QQs+ and some random junk hands EG generally the top of our folding range. What I mean by this is the best hand we fold to an open in that spot makes up the top of our folding range. For example if A5s is the worst hand we call a CO open with OTB then A4s should be the first hand we 3 bet as a bluff. So the polarised range in this spot may look like AK,QQs+ and A2s-A4s, K2s-K6s ect..

Now that we know what a polarised range looks like it is important to talk about the frequencies of bluffs versus value in this range. For example say an opponent opens 35% of hands in the CO but only plays back (4 bets) with AK, QQs+ when 3 bet from the BTN. We should be weighting our 3 bet range towards a higher percentage of bluffs and tightening our value range so that we cooler his value range. What I mean by this is that if he only 4 bet calls it off with AK, QQs+ then we should only be 3 betting KKs+ for value because QQs and AK are an underdog to his stack off range (Stove AK,QQ+ versus AK and QQs if you donít believe me). If this is in fact true which I would expect to it to be with most tight Regulars at the micros with no history then we should clearly be 3 betting widely with junky hands as a bluff to steal from there wide opens and high fold to 3 bets. So a realistic range for us against this player might look like KKs+ and 10% of junky hands too weak to call with. I once read sauce 123 write somewhere that if we canít 3 bet 5 bet AK for value then clearly we should be bluffing our opponent an absolute ton
If our opponent is somewhat observant or just on the looser side of life, they will begin to 4 bet bluff us, as they should. Clearly now we can start 3 betting wider for value and less as a bluff. Now we might include JJs+ and AK into our value range and only 3 bet bluff 6% of the time.

When our opponent becomes really aggressive 4 betting us a ton to our 3 bets then we should start 3 betting with the intention of 5 betting all pairs and maybe have no bluffing range. In the first example our value comes from our opponents folding too much to our 3 bets. When our opponent is this aggressive the value comes from them 4 bet folding off 21-27bbs the times we 3 bet 5 bet. People may argue that well what about all the times we run 22s into JJs well clearly this isnít good. However we still have 20% equity and we take down so much dead money the times our opponent 4 bet folds that this play is still +EV.. I can further explain this example if people wish
*Important thing to note is when we should use a polarised range. In the examples above there was no talk about playing against opponents who call our 3 bets OOP. The reason for this is because if our opponent calls 3 bets OOP we should be adopting a depolarised range and scraping the ideas listed above...

Hopefully this gives you some basic understanding of a polarised 3 betting range feel free to add more to what I have said or argue against any of the points I have madeÖ

Depolarised range- The basic idea behind a depolarised range is that the whole range consist only of hands in which we think we can use to extract value from our opponents. This type of range should be the one we use most commonly at micro stakes and will always be the range we use against bad players. A basic depolarised range may look something like any Broadway and A9s+ as well as some pairs 88+. This range basically contains big cards which do well equity wise versus wide ranges. I would adapt a depolarised range either IP or OOP when I thought my opponents most likely response to my 3 bet was to call. Bad playerís most likely response in poker will be to call and this range does best equity wise versus there wide calling range making it far more effective than a polarised strategy.

Now onto some more frequencies. How thin we bet for value in any situation in poker generally depends on how wide our opponent will call us down. For example if our opponent will call us with King high on the river then we should value bet Ace high. This translates directly into 3 betting. If our opponent will call us preflop with 87s then clearly 3 betting A7o or A8o for value crushes there strategy or even J8s would be an acceptable hand to go for thin value. People may argue that J8s although is way ahead of 87s equity wise we are crushed when called by hands like JTs. This is true however the times we are called by better is made up for by the times they open and fold to our 3 bet, call our 3 bet with worse, call our 3 bet with better and c/f to a cbet and generally them just playing worse than us on later streets and paying us off with worse hands. If they never fold to our 3 bet then J8s(bottom of our value range) in general does well enough against most ranges to still make it profitable with a cbet on the flop. The point I am trying to demonstrate here is that when we 3 bet thin for value we are occasionally going to get called by better hands however it is clear that this situation is still very profitable. As I mentioned above how thin we go for value depends on how wide our opponents will call our 3 bets. Most bad players will call with all PPs, SCs, one gapers and broadways against these guys we can 3bet thin for value with a very wide range EG any Ax and plan on taking down a ton of pots OTF. Hope this makes it clear why we should 3 bet versus bad players a ton and why it is so profitable. Ask if you donít understand.

Clearly there are some other adjustments we can make here. EG if our opponent never folds post flop to our cbets then we can tighten up a little to ensure we always have an equity edge against his range when going to the flop. In the J8s example a lot of the time we might have 40% equity versus there hand but the fact they play so fit and fold on the flop makes our equity go up. (Skill is equity) if our opponent is a calling station then clearly this play is far less +EV and possibly even -EV.

*Important to note that we will always use a depolarised range versus bad players both IP and OOP.

The next major time when a depolarised range is used is when we are in the blinds 3 betting a regular who opened OTB or in the CO. Important to note straight away that we could use a polarised range versus regulars who open in late position to. I recommend though versus regulars that a depolarised range will be better because our opponents most like response to our 3 bet when they are in position will be to call. If there response IP was to raise or fold then polarising would be good. The reason why depolarising is better than polarising is because if we 3 bet say 75s as a bluff and they call us with ATs as expected then clearly there killing us with equity+ position. However if we 3 bet AJs and they call with ATs then then clearly were doing a lot better now. The interesting thing about 3 betting from the blinds is that we can end up in a bit of a stand still where we have the best hand some of the time AJvAT and then they have the best hand AQvAJ. The only reason why we can win from this situation is that there opening range to start with will be a lot wider than ours. Therefor if we are only 3 betting broadways and they are only calling with broadways then we win because they open and fold the times they donít have a Broadway whereas when called our ranges have 50% equity versus each other. Position also is clearly a factor here but thatís another story. This is clearly just a theory example it is very unlikely two peoples ranges will be exactly the same like that. Now imagine if they call us with a wider range then just broadways. Now we start to have a bigger equity edge but make less from the times they open and then fold. So our profit now comes from thin value bets post flop and taking down the pot OTF versus a weakish range. If on the other hand they only start to call us with the top 50% of broadways and folding the rest then clearly we should start to adopt a polarised range because more of our profit comes from them opening wide and folding a ton to our 3 bets. People might be thinking how the button wins from this example. Easy they just have to tighten up there opening range. Then we canít 3 bet as wide so we play tighter. When they realise this they should widen there range again. Hopefully this explains how when our opponent does one thing we should do the other and vice versa.

Against the better regulars that understand that our range is depolarised they may call our 3 bets with big cards some of the time as well as 4 bet bluff us, and 4 bet for value some of the time. This is clearly puts us in a tough spotÖ I have a fairly good idea of a counter strategy but will leave this one open for other peoples input!!!

Position Ė Iím only briefly going to discuss position because I have already written a really long post and briefly gone through it already. Basically against a bad opponent we should only ever 3 bet depolarised because we know they only 4 bet the nuts and call us with tons of worse hands. Position versus these players doesnít matter. Regulars we should be polarised IP almost always unless they are bad regulars who will call 3 bets OOP then clearly depolarising is good to take advantage of our initiative and position. OOP as discussed versus regulars we can polarise or depolarise depending on how our opponent reacts to our 3 bets IP. To start with though depolarising will generally be better.

Table dynamics- can be very important when deciding whether or not to 3 bet. Here are a couple examples where we may decide to 3 bet and where we may decide to call instead. Say we are OTB and a fish opens in the CO. There are two solid regulars in the blinds more than capable of squeezing or taking a flop with a marginal holding because of the fish presence. We hold JTs should we 3 bet? My answer would be yes. We can definitely get value from worse from the fish however this is not my main point. The important thing relating to table dynamics is that by 3 betting ourselves we isolate the fish heads up and get to play a pot solely with the fish and not the regulars. To take this one step further say if we held AAs here and we knew that the regular in the BB knew that we 3 bet isolate wide versus the fish and only call with marginal holdings then we could call planning on back raising when the regular squeezes not only coolering his whole value range but also getting value from his bluffs. The main question to ask in these situations would be can I get value now? If the answer is yes then you should go one step further and ask can I get more value later? If the answer is also yes then clearly calling will be better.

The other example I have is imagine we are in the BB and a regular who folds a lot to 3 bets opens in the CO and the fish calls OTB. We hold ATs should we fold, call, raise? I think we should raise. The regular will fold a ton to our 3 bet and we expect the fish to call with a ton of junk which will fold to a cbet OTF or call down with worse. Some people may squeeze with junk here which is likely fine versus two regulars but with the fish presence 3 betting junk becomes a lot worse. To take this one step further swap the seat of the fish and CO around. Now when we squeeze we are likely to get two callers because the fish will call our squeeze and induce the regular to come along based on the amazing odds they are being offered. In this situation ATs may become a call a preflop and we should only squeeze with stronger stuff we can get cleaner value with in a multiway pot.

Hopefully these two examples give some idea of how table dynamics can severely alter our decisions to 3 bet and with which range.
*feel free to add another example of where table dynamics play a part in our decisions to 3 bet.

Stack sizes- are the final thing I am going to talk about. Back to the first example I gave in table dynamics I talked about how we might consider calling an open to induce a squeeze from a regular. Letís say the same example we are 200bbs deep with the fish and the regular only has a 100bb stack. Even though we know the regular might be highly inclined to squeeze we should still go ahead and 3 bet the fish. If we answer those questions I recommended before its clear we can get value later from the squeeze but itís clearer that we can get heaps of value now from the fish because he is so deep and will make so many mistakes post flop. If on the other hand the fish was only 50BBs deep calling is likely better again because majority of our value comes from the regular.

Another example might be say the fish has 30bbs and we are considering whether or not to 3 bet from the BTN with JTs. Some might argue that this should just be a call as stacks sizes are so small that we lose any fold equity(FE) post flop to be able to 3 bet this thin. I tend to agree with this notion and would generally just prefer a call in this spot solely because of the stack sizes.

With this said this brings me to my last point. As stack sizes decrease we lose FE and therefore we canít 3 bet as thin for value. As stack sizes increase we gain more fold equity as our opponents now have a lot more to lose in big pots.

*important to remember that these are only examples and depend on how the people at your table are actually playing.

I wrote this in like an hour so there is likely a few grammar mistakes and I know everything I preach is not always correct. I hope you guys take something from this as I really enjoyed writing it. If you like it let me know and Iíll write a post about defence against 3 bets. Oh and clearly this is not everything about 3 betting merely touching on the surface..
Peace out
Anaconda,
FYP
supern1le is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 05:21 AM   #6
bigacsiga
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bigacsiga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: superusing with no remorse
Posts: 7,834
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

bigacsiga's general rules of 3betting:

Do it in bunches

peace out, bigacsiga
bigacsiga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 06:01 AM   #7
W.Eeyore
centurion
 
W.Eeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NZ
Posts: 121
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

That was actually an amazing read.

Very logical and insightful.

It breaks down all the common questions to 3betting like:
When to 3bet. Why 3bet. With what ranges to 3bet but most importantly how to adjust and to tailor your 3betting to exploit a variety of different playing styles.
W.Eeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 10:37 AM   #8
blackmagic16
grinder
 
blackmagic16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 556
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Quote:
We should be weighting our 3 bet range towards a higher percentage of bluffs and tightening our value range so that we cooler his value range. What I mean by this is that if he only 4 bet calls it off with AK, QQs+ then we should only be 3 betting KKs+ for value because QQs and AK are an underdog to his stack off range (Stove AK,QQ+ versus AK and QQs if you don’t believe me). If this is in fact true which I would expect to it to be with most tight Regulars at the micros with no history then we should clearly be 3 betting widely with junky hands as a bluff to steal from there wide opens and high fold to 3 bets. So a realistic range for us against this player might look like KKs+ and 10% of junky hands too weak to call with. I once read sauce 123 write somewhere that if we can’t 3 bet 5 bet AK for value then clearly we should be bluffing our opponent an absolute ton
If our opponent is somewhat observant or just on the looser side of life, they will begin to 4 bet bluff us, as they should. Clearly now we can start 3 betting wider for value and less as a bluff. Now we might include JJs+ and AK into our value range and only 3 bet bluff 6% of the time.
This section really clarified how I thought about 3betting! Thanks.

Quote:
Most bad players will call with all PPs, SCs, one gapers and broadways against these guys we can 3bet thin for value with a very wide range EG any Ax and plan on taking down a ton of pots OTF. Hope this makes it clear why we should 3 bet versus bad players a ton and why it is so profitable. Ask if you don’t understand.
I understand. PPs and SCs especially can be very speculative, and catching a significant piece of a flop is <30% so it should be profitable to take down a pot OTF.


I'm reading through this piece by piece, understanding and mulling it over.

Absolutely incredible read, will take multiple sittings to sink in.

Cheers!
blackmagic16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 02:43 PM   #9
jherward
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Meath,Ireland
Posts: 626
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Nice post,just space it out a bit better like the quote in post 5 and I'd love to read your thoughts on defense against 3bets.

Thanks for this.
jherward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 03:14 PM   #10
Mr.Orange
grinder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vegas and the F**king Mirage
Posts: 592
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Quote:
OOP as discussed versus regulars we can polarise or depolarise depending on how our opponent reacts to our 3 bets IP. To start with though depolarising will generally be better.
Why start with depolarized range ?
When there is no dynamic and stuff, dont regs just fold. You have little info so you dont know that they will call with ATs so you dont know if you should 3bet AJ for value...

anyway nice read!
Mr.Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 12:20 AM   #11
Infection
old hand
 
Infection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: bottom of my range
Posts: 1,409
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Very good post, it's making me realize how little I understand about 4bet/5bet dynamics. Thanks for writing this all out.

Prepare for nitpickeration:

Quote:
Originally Posted by anaconda disease View Post
If our opponent is somewhat observant or just on the looser side of life, they will begin to 4 bet bluff us, as they should. Clearly now we can start 3 betting wider for value and less as a bluff. Now we might include JJs+ and AK into our value range and only 3 bet bluff 6% of the time.
I believe this is actually an incorrect response. If he's 4betting or folding and his 4bets are polarized, that doesn't give you license to widen your value range in this way. He's still likely going to have premiums when he calls your 5bet shove, and so 3bet/5betting hands like JJ is a waste, right? Basically we either fold out a worse hand or get it in against a better one...

I think the appropriate response to a verified high % 4bet bluffer is to first ask "is he exploiting me with his 4bet bluff frequency?" At these stakes the answer is pretty much always "no", IMO. If he is going nuts with a polarized 4betting range, then the bluff portion of our 5bets should be the 3bet bluff hands that do the best against his calling range...A5s is like 30% against QQ+, AKo and about the same if we add AQ and JJ in his calling range and holding the ace reduces the # of premium combos by like...20%? (too lazy to do the math atm), so that's probably a good place to start.

Oh, and if you are 3betting a polarized range to start with, are you even going to have many pairs in it to 5bet/jam? Aren't we flatting those pre?

If he simply is 4betting a wider value range and calling it off lighter, then yeah we are totally happy to 3bet/jam JJ. Rarely do you see this dynamic develop at lower stakes.

Anyways, the time to widen your value range is when...you can get more value! For example, if he gets fed up and starts flatting a high % of your 3bets, then 3betting JJ becomes a more +EV play because we get more value from his weaker hands (as you mention in the depolarized range section).

Quote:
Originally Posted by anaconda disease View Post
Now onto some more frequencies. How thin we bet for value in any situation in poker generally depends on how wide our opponent will call us down. For example if our opponent will call us with King high on the river then we should value bet Ace high.
This is kinda nitpicky, but knowing that villain will call with K high doesn't necessarily mean we should vbet A high. We need to know that we are ahead of more than 50% of his calling range, that's the only criteria for whether or not a vbet is +EV. He needs to have more worse hands than better in his calling range.

Last edited by Infection; 07-15-2012 at 12:40 AM.
Infection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 01:04 AM   #12
Mr Beer
banned
 
Mr Beer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,973
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

I really liked this post and believe it's well worth reading. So I went through it and fixed the paragraph issue along with all the spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes I could find. It would be a shame to miss these thoughts just because it looks like a frightening wall of text.

Also, anaconda, please go ahead and do your post on 3-bet defence.

Guide to 3-betting by anaconda disease

Hey guys, I saw a cool post about 3-betting yesterday so thought I’d do something similar.

My general guidelines to 3-betting:

The first question to ask when deciding to 3-bet is whether we will be polarising or depolarising our 3-betting range.

Polarised range

This is when we 3-bet the top several percentage of hands e.g. AKs, QQ+ and some random junk hands, i.e. generally the top of our folding range. What I mean by this is the best hand we fold to an open in that spot makes up the top of our folding range. For example if A5s is the worst hand we call a CO open with OTB then A4s should be the first hand we 3-bet as a bluff. So the polarised range in this spot may look like AK,QQ+ and A2s-A4s, K2s-K6s etc.

Now that we know what a polarised range looks like, it is important to talk about the frequencies of bluffs versus value in this range.

For example, say an opponent opens 35% of hands in the CO but only plays back (4-bets) with AK, QQs+ when 3-bet from the BTN. We should be weighting our 3-bet range towards a higher percentage of bluffs and tightening our value range so that we cooler his value range. What I mean by this is that if he only 4-bet calls it off with AK, QQs+ then we should only be 3-betting KK+ for value because QQ and AK are an underdog to his stack off range (Stove AK,QQ+ versus AK and QQ if you don’t believe me).

If this is in fact true which I would expect to it to be with most tight regulars at the micros with no history then we should clearly be 3-betting widely with junky hands as a bluff to steal from there wide opens and high fold to 3-bets. So a realistic range for us against this player might look like KKs+ and 10% of junky hands too weak to call with. I once read sauce 123 write somewhere that if we can’t 3-bet / 5-bet AK for value then clearly we should be bluffing our opponent an absolute ton.

If our opponent is somewhat observant or just on the looser side of life, they will begin to 4-bet bluff us, as they should. Clearly now we can start 3-betting wider for value and less as a bluff. Now we might include JJ+ and AK into our value range and only 3-bet bluff 6% of the time.

When our opponent becomes really aggressive 4-betting us a ton to our 3-bets then we should start 3-betting with the intention of 5-betting all pairs and maybe have no bluffing range. In the first example our value comes from our opponents folding too much to our 3-bets. When our opponent is this aggressive the value comes from them 4-bet folding off 21-27bbs the times we 3-bet / 5-bet.

People may argue that “Well what about all the times we run 22 into JJ?” well clearly this isn’t good. However we still have 20% equity and we take down so much dead money the times our opponent 4-bet folds that this play is still +EV. I can further explain this example if people wish.

An important thing to note is when we should use a polarised range. In the examples above there was no talk about playing against opponents who call our 3-bets OOP. The reason for this is because if our opponent calls 3-bets OOP we should be adopting a depolarised range and scrapping the ideas listed above.

Hopefully this gives you some basic understanding of a polarised 3-betting range. Feel free to add more to what I have said, or argue against any of the points I have made.

Depolarised range

The basic idea behind a depolarised range is that the whole range consist only of hands in which we think we can use to extract value from our opponents. This type of range should be the one we use most commonly at micro stakes and will always be the range we use against bad players.
A basic depolarised range may look something like any Broadway and A9s+, as well as some pairs 88+. This range basically contains big cards which do well equity-wise versus wide ranges. I would adapt a depolarised range either IP or OOP when I thought my opponents most likely response to my 3-bet was to call. A bad player’s most likely response in poker will be to call and this range does best equity wise versus there wide calling range making it far more effective than a polarised strategy.

Now, onto some more considerations. How thin we bet for value in any situation in poker generally depends on how wide our opponent will call us down.

For example, if our opponent will call us with King high on the river then we should value bet Ace high. This translates directly into 3-betting. If our opponent will call us preflop with 87s, then clearly 3-betting A7o or A8o for value crushes there strategy or even J8s would be an acceptable hand to go for thin value.

People may argue that J8s, although is way ahead of 87s, equity wise we are crushed when called by hands like JTs. This is true however the times we are called by better is made up for by the times they open and fold to our 3-bet, call our 3-bet with worse, call our 3-bet with better then x/f to a c-bet and generally them just playing worse than us on later streets and paying us off with worse hands.

If they never fold to our 3-bet then J8s (bottom of our value range) in general does well enough against most ranges to still make it profitable with a c-bet on the flop. The point I am trying to demonstrate here is that when we 3-bet thin for value we are occasionally going to get called by better hands, however it is clear that this situation is still very profitable. As I mentioned above how thin we go for value depends on how wide our opponents will call our 3-bets. Most bad players will call with all PPs, SCs, one gappers and broadways. Against these guys we can 3-bet thin for value with a very wide range e.g. any Ax and plan on taking down a ton of pots OTF. I hope this makes it clear why we should 3-bet versus bad players a ton and why it is so profitable. Ask me if you don’t understand.

Clearly there are some other adjustments we can make here e.g. if our opponent never folds post flop to our c-bets, then we can tighten up a little to ensure we always have an equity edge against his range when going to the flop. In the J8s example a lot of the time we might have 40% equity versus their hand, but the fact they play so fit and fold on the flop makes our equity go up (skill is equity). If our opponent is a calling station then clearly this play is far less +EV and possibly even –EV.

Important to note that we will always use a depolarised range versus bad players both IP and OOP.

The next major time when a depolarised range is used is when we are in the blinds 3-betting a regular who opened OTB or in the CO. Important to note straight away that we could use a polarised range versus regulars who open in late position to. I recommend though versus regulars that a depolarised range will be better because our opponents most like response to our 3-bet when they are in position will be to call. If their response IP was to raise or fold then polarising would be good.

The reason why depolarising is better than polarising is because if we 3-bet say 75s as a bluff and they call us with ATs as expected then clearly they’re killing us with equity + position. However, if we 3-bet AJs and they call with ATs then then clearly we’re doing a lot better now.

The interesting thing about 3-betting from the blinds is that we can end up in a bit of a stand-still where we have the best hand some of the time AJ v AT and then they have the best hand AQ v AJ. The only reason why we can win from this situation is that their opening range to start with will be a lot wider than ours. Therefore if we are only 3-betting Broadways and they are only calling with Broadways then we win because they open and fold the times they don’t have a Broadway whereas when called our ranges have 50% equity versus each other. Position also is clearly a factor here but that’s another story. This is clearly just a theoretical example; it is very unlikely two people’s ranges will be exactly the same like that.

Now imagine if they call us with a wider range than just Broadways. Now we start to have a bigger equity edge but make less from the times they open and then fold. So our profit now comes from thin value bets post flop and taking down the pot OTF versus a weakish range. If on the other hand they only start to call us with the top 50% of Broadways and folding the rest then clearly we should start to adopt a polarised range because more of our profit comes from them opening wide and folding a ton to our 3-bets. People might be thinking how the button can win in this example. Easy, they just have to tighten up their opening range. Then we can’t 3-bet as wide so we play tighter. When they realise this, they should widen there range again. Hopefully this explains how when our opponent does one thing, we should do the other and vice versa.

Against the better regulars that understand that our range is depolarised they may call our 3-bets with big cards some of the time as well as 4-bet bluff us, and 4-bet for value some of the time. This is clearly puts us in a tough spot… I have a fairly good idea of a counter strategy but will leave this one open for other peoples input!

Position

I’m only briefly going to discuss position because I have already written a really long post and briefly gone through it already. Basically against a bad opponent we should only ever 3-bet depolarised, because we know they only 4-bet the nuts and call us with tons of worse hands. Position versus these players doesn’t matter.
Against regulars we should be polarised IP almost always unless they are bad regulars who will call 3-bets OOP, then clearly depolarising is good to take advantage of our initiative and position. OOP as discussed versus regulars we can polarise or depolarise depending on how our opponent reacts to our 3-bets IP. To start with though depolarising will generally be better.

Table dynamics

This can be very important when deciding whether or not to 3-bet. Here are a couple examples where we may decide to 3-bet and where we may decide to call instead.

Say we are OTB and a fish opens in the CO. There are two solid regulars in the blinds more than capable of squeezing or taking a flop with a marginal holding because of the fish presence. We hold JTs. Should we 3-bet? My answer would be yes. We can definitely get value from worse from the fish however this is not my main point. The important thing relating to table dynamics is that by 3-betting ourselves we isolate the fish heads up and get to play a pot solely with the fish and not the regulars. To take this one step further, say if we held AA here and we knew that the regular in the BB knew that we 3-bet isolate wide versus the fish and only call with marginal holdings. Then we could call planning on back raising when the regular squeezes, not only coolering his whole value range but also getting value from his bluffs. The main question to ask in these situations would be “Can I get value now?” If the answer is yes then you should go one step further and ask “Can I get more value later?” If the answer is also yes, then clearly calling will be better.

The other example I have is, imagine we are in the BB and a regular who folds a lot to 3-bets opens in the CO and the fish calls OTB. We hold ATs. Should we fold, call or raise? I think we should raise. The regular will fold a ton to our 3-bet and we expect the fish to call with a ton of junk which will fold to a c-bet OTF or call down with worse. Some people may squeeze with junk here which is likely fine versus two regulars but with the fish presence 3-betting junk becomes a lot worse. To take this one step further, swap the seat of the fish and CO around. Now when we squeeze we are likely to get two callers because the fish will call our squeeze and induce the regular to come along based on the amazing odds they are being offered. In this situation ATs may become a call a preflop and we should only squeeze with stronger stuff that we can get cleaner value with in a multiway pot.

Hopefully these two examples give some idea of how table dynamics can severely alter our decisions to 3-bet and with which range.

Feel free to add another example of where table dynamics play a part in our decisions to 3-bet.

Stack sizes

The final thing I am going to talk about. Back in the first example I gave in table dynamics, I talked about how we might consider calling an open to induce a squeeze from a regular. Let’s say the same example, we are 200bbs deep with the fish and the regular only has a 100bb stack. Even though we know the regular might be highly inclined to squeeze we should still go ahead and 3-bet the fish. If we answer those questions I recommended before its clear we can get value later from the squeeze but it’s clearer that we can get heaps of value now from the fish because he is so deep and will make so many mistakes post flop. If on the other hand the fish was only 50bbs deep calling is likely better again because majority of our value comes from the regular.

Another example might be say the fish has 30bbs and we are considering whether or not to 3-bet from the BTN with JTs. Some might argue that this should just be a call as stacks sizes are so small that we lose any fold equity(FE) post flop to be able to 3-bet this thin. I tend to agree with this notion and would generally just prefer a call in this spot solely because of the stack sizes.

With this said this brings me to my last point. As stack sizes decrease we lose FE and therefore we can’t 3-bet as thin for value. As stack sizes increase we gain more fold equity as our opponents now have a lot more to lose in big pots.

Important to remember that these are only examples and depend on how the people at your table are actually playing.

I wrote this in like an hour, so there is likely a few grammar mistakes and I know everything I preach is not always correct. I hope you guys take something from this as I really enjoyed writing it. If you like it let me know and I’ll write a post about defence against 3-bets. Oh and clearly this is not everything about 3-betting merely touching on the surface.

Peace out

anaconda disease

Last edited by Mr Beer; 07-15-2012 at 01:11 AM.
Mr Beer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 04:33 AM   #13
anaconda disease
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 789
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Eeyore View Post
That was actually an amazing read.

Very logical and insightful.

It breaks down all the common questions to 3betting like:
When to 3bet. Why 3bet. With what ranges to 3bet but most importantly how to adjust and to tailor your 3betting to exploit a variety of different playing styles.
thanks mate glad someone enjoyed it..
anaconda disease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 04:34 AM   #14
anaconda disease
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 789
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

hey mr beer thanks heaps for editing my post i really apreciate it...
anaconda disease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 04:50 AM   #15
anaconda disease
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 789
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Orange View Post
Why start with depolarized range ?
When there is no dynamic and stuff, dont regs just fold. You have little info so you dont know that they will call with ATs so you dont know if you should 3bet AJ for value...

anyway nice read!
this is a really good question.. firstly if we are playing micro stakes i would always assume my opponet is not a regular unless i have a reason to when i first sit down. so basically unless they are sitting on multiple tables and im playing atleast 50nl i would just assume there going to be on the passive side of things..
lets say we know that they are a regular then i would still 3 bet depolarised at the start generally. i understand where your coming from so maybe there is some merit to making the first 3 bet with a weak hand because the likelyhood of them folding is at its highest. after this first one though they should realise we are a regular and begin calling with big cards so depolarising becomes the only option.
important to note that if we know there a reg then they likely know where a reg and will be 3 betting with wider range then alot of other people at these stakes so naturally they should be more inclinded to call our 3 bets from the outset.
i must also add that the only way we find out what people are calling with is by 3 betting and actually being callled.
this is my thoughts on why depolarising might be better
anaconda disease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 05:07 AM   #16
anaconda disease
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 789
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

[QUOTE=Infection;33760120]Very good post, it's making me realize how little I understand about 4bet/5bet dynamics. Thanks for writing this all out.

Prepare for nitpickeration:


I believe this is actually an incorrect response. If he's 4betting or folding and his 4bets are polarized, that doesn't give you license to widen your value range in this way. He's still likely going to have premiums when he calls your 5bet shove, and so 3bet/5betting hands like JJ is a waste, right? Basically we either fold out a worse hand or get it in against a better one...

i understand what you mean and i defeintly agree that these type of dynamics rarely appear at the micros. i think what you are saying definetly makes sence... wow pokers complex. spent 10 mins thinking of a responce to write lol.. ill come back to this later..
anaconda disease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 05:46 AM   #17
Onions&Celery
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 66
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Neg. If his 4bets be polarized, then we should still be 3betting a depolarized range, we should just be flatting villains 4bet instead of jamming over it if villains calling range will still be mostly premiums (assuming villain will continue bluffing with his weakened range on further betting rounds).

As for the small PP's argument, honestly, as poker has progressed and the pool of regs has improved their ability to fold, implied odds have diminished thus limiting the ability to flat (even in position sometimes) with them and increasing their relative value for use in preflop shenanigans. Of course, this wouldn't be as much of an issue if postflop ranges were more balanced and villain couldn't fold every time hero raised a flop or a turn, but that's usually not the case in this forum.
Onions&Celery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2012, 11:50 AM   #18
andymc1
old hand
 
andymc1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Folding's too weak!
Posts: 1,937
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

I think if we come up against a reg who we know has a wide polarized 4betting range in certain spots the correct response is to flat the hands we don't want to 5b shove with, stuff like AQ, AJ, KQs, etc because they do badly vs his 5b calling range and we don't want to waste them by 3b/f if we can flat profitably.

Then we 3b with the intention of 5betting in spots where we know he has a lot of 4b bluffs(bvb for ex.) with the top of our range QQ+ AK and add in stuff that does a little better vs his 5b calling range like pocket pairs or small suited aces. We can obv only start 5b bluffing if we think his 4b range contains enough bluffs. Something you can rarely get a solid enough read on at the unl and the vast majority of players don't.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

349,310,016 games 0.000 secs 69,862,003,200 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 65.972% 65.68% 00.29% 229438920 1007454.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 34.028% 33.74% 00.29% 117856188 1007454.00 { 22 }

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

493,143,552 games 0.000 secs 98,628,710,400 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 75.580% 74.21% 01.37% 365966964 6751686.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 24.420% 23.05% 01.37% 113673216 6751686.00 { AQo }
andymc1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2012, 03:43 PM   #19
Infection
old hand
 
Infection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: bottom of my range
Posts: 1,409
Re: some thoughts on 3 bet pots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onions&Celery View Post
Neg. If his 4bets be polarized, then we should still be 3betting a depolarized range, we should just be flatting villains 4bet instead of jamming over it if villains calling range will still be mostly premiums (assuming villain will continue bluffing with his weakened range on further betting rounds).

As for the small PP's argument, honestly, as poker has progressed and the pool of regs has improved their ability to fold, implied odds have diminished thus limiting the ability to flat (even in position sometimes) with them and increasing their relative value for use in preflop shenanigans. Of course, this wouldn't be as much of an issue if postflop ranges were more balanced and villain couldn't fold every time hero raised a flop or a turn, but that's usually not the case in this forum.
3bet/calling a wide depolarized range is optimal is when we are expecting to get to showdown and win against weaker hands. If we expect villain to 4bet ATo and then get it in on Axx or QTx, then flatting 4bets is great with AQ, I agree. If his bluffs are giving up postflop, then it doesn't really matter if we have AQ or not, right? If we are winning or losing most pots without a showdown, then we are really wasting the value of hands like AQo IMO, unless there is just so much dead money that using this hand for it's blockers makes bluffing seem more +EV than getting value from worse hands post flop...almost never the case at micros. Might as well flat it pre and have his range crushed, IMO.
Infection is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive