3-bettor is running 10/6 0% 3bet over ~50 hands

I flat pre because I thought a 4-bet would fold out everything except aces. Is this logic fine?

Did I miss a value bet on the river? In hindsight I think he probably raises QQ/TT on the turn (and maybe not even check back flop)



edit: i was UTG, hh is being weird
re-edit: another thing that went through my mind was that I thought a bigpart of his range was both AK/AA

Please bet the river.

you have to bet this river imo.

Bet river to boost redline, when called he has AA.

Why are you betting the turn?

good question.

for value against AK i guess. i plan to b/f turn.

i didn't really think through the turn/river very well. i just bet the turn because it felt right.

well if u bet the turn and he did not raise bet the river.

Yea, I was thinking the same thing, his hand seems like AK a ton. I much rather check the turn and give him a chance to bet with ace high then expect this nit to call with ace high. As played river is a bet, but u really only get value from his preflop misclick range

Ok, so on the river I put him on either AA/KK(unlikely obv)/AK/JJ (don't really think he'd 3-bet JJ)

I think AA calls, JJ calls (a smallish bet), KK calls, and AK folds to a river bet.
I think AA bets river if i check, the rest check back, with the exception of AK which sometimes bluffs/tries to bet me off chop.

Is there a way to give weight to each of these scenarios and mathematically determine the value of a bet or check?

i prefer a turn bet to get value from any KQ, AQ, JJ, AT sorta hands that are in his range. maybe even hands like 67dd take this line. plus he occasionally calls a bet with AK and we are still protecting vs this a little and there's little chance we induce by checking.

50 hand sample..........not very big.

To make an extra $14.

There is more value in getting a call from AK than expecting him to bluff with it. As well as other non-zero factors.

Of course, that's what good players do every decision they make (subconsciously.) it's not hard to work out for yourself though. The trick is to assign accurate probabilities to each decision, which are going to be subjective.

honestly i like line in op

on river, you're almost never getting called by worse, (AQ maybe?) and your hand looks super weak when you check/bet/check, so I think you can induce fairly often

hero bets 32.00

isn't this a 4bet or fold pre?

if you flat pre, are you planning to c/f when an A hits the flop? When the flop doesn't have an ace, are you planning to call down when he bet/bet/shoves? Against this guy's range, there's no profitable way to play this postflop imo.

Im being completely serious so excuse me if this comes off rude but are you leveling? If so, carry on. If not Id be happy to explain

I'm not levelling -- i play 6max and i'm trying to incorporate some FR as well, and these are the kind of spots that i'm trying to adapt to and learn about.

it just seems to me that if we give him JJ+ and AK we can 4b/get it in, but if we give him KK+/AK only, we have to fold. I'm assuming here that a 10/6 with a 0% 3bet has no 3b bluff range.

I just don't understand the point of calling here ever, especially since it's gonna be pretty impossible to balance our OOP 3b-calling range vs a nit.

what other hands could we be flatting with pre when a nit 3bets our UTG open? How does a flat here fit into the rest of hero's body of work?

bet 27 all day

He didn't mean 4bet/fold in case you were wondering if it was one of those "4bet and see where you are at and fold" levels. Anyway back to the original point, I don't think we can fold yet if his range is AA/occasional AK and bluffs, and I think 4bet/call is a bit too thin.

Well with us having 50 hands on him we have no reason to be making any determinations about what his range is in this spot. We would obv think it is on the tighter side since thats what his stats indicate so far but with having no history/meta/stats/etc were not going to have a realstic idea at this point.

Obv if we had reasons to assign him the ranges you discussed then your reactions to those ranges are obv correct, so I completely agree about how to respond if we had solid reads developed to actually make those determinations.

My reason for flatting pre would be that im able to keep his range the widest. I would be confident against a player like this that I would be able to minimize my losses against his strong hands (when he has AA as overpair or flopped set/two pair/AK on Axx bd), and maximize my wins against his hands that i dominate plus induce the most from the air parts of his range.

As far as balance goes, who cares? We have 50 hands on this guy. If/when he becomes a reg then we can worry about it.

As far as if he was a reg and how I would be balancing in this spot....

"It depends" lol. Nah, but seriously I would wanna know so much more about my opponent before I figured out how I would want to be defending in this spot. One of the intricacies of full ring is figuring out how certain player types are going to be 3betting our EP/early MP range. It varries so greatly for everyone that I wouldnt be making blanket assumptions (like u did). If i had to generalize in this particular spot its position vs position where a lot of regs seems to be fairly nitty, move us both one over to the button and it gets quite a bit wider and move us closer to EP and it gets even nittier. The problem with making assumptions in a spot like this is that its position vs position where a lot of your better regs are going to be 3betting you polarized only because as another general assumption so many regs are going to be 4b or fold in this particular spot.

Also, I am of the opinion that polarized in full ring has a slightly different meaning that what it does in a 6M game. I understand the word has obv the same meaning but I think strength is all relative. Polarization is defined as nuts/air of course. What im saying is that in 6M a polarized 3betting range could be something like AK/JJ-AA/72o/93o where in FR a polarized 3betting range would look something like AA/72o/93o. Dont know how much sense that makes lol. I guess its just the inherit nittiness of full ring that when we say we have the nuts we mean "the nuts" not TPTK lol.

^^^ good post. i can see why flatting is good if we think villain has a bluff range here, but he doesn't seem like the bluffing type and these positions aren't positions where villains are going to be 3betting light very often so i still prefer getting it in pre or folding. I don't like the idea of trying to play a huge pot out of position because we'll be allowing villain to play very well against us.