A discussion with Corsakh - 3betting pairs from the blinds

[ama0330]

I was discussing with Corsakh the merits (or lack thereof) in 3betting a medium pair from the blinds, specifically TT-99. What I thought I would do is illustrate some hands where we 3bet, and where we dont, and what situation each choice leaves us in. Fwiw I don't actually have a standard line in these spots yet, so this is not a "lesson" per se, its more a post which I hope will generate some meaningful discussion.

In these hands I have given hero 99 and not TT because I think it is important to realise that in most of these situations TT=99. Even though you may think that TT looks stronger, it almost always isnt when you consider his range. I haven't included the blinds in my calcs for simplicity. Also, quite clearly the flop texture has a big part to play in our decisions. Here, I have given a flop texture that is mostly harmless, not particularly draw heavy, but more importantly, it is good for a cbet both for us when we 3bet preflop, and for him when we just call preflop.

MP in these hands is a TAG, he is 19/16/3.0 over a good sample. There are no specific session dynamics which would make either one of us do anything crazy, but we both know that we play well and are both capable of making moves.

I've listed each position in terms of amount invested, amount won, and hand strength certainty. What do I mean by hand strength certainty? This is the way in which I measure the quality of the decision you make, based on the amount of informaiton you are given. If you are facing a shove when villain can hold a wide range, that means that your certainty about where you stand is poor. If you can narrow your opponents range down to a fine selection, then your hand strength certainty is high, making your decision much easier. In poker, the closer you get to the river, in general, the more certain you can be of your hand's strength relative to your opponents holding and make a comfortable decision, be it fold call or raise.



First, lets take a look at 3betting and cbetting.


Hand 1: We 3bet and cbet, he folds

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $2</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, MP calls.

Flop: ($12) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $10</font>, MP folds.


Net amount invested: $16
Net amount won: $6
Hand strength certainty: Unknown

<font color="blue">Our villains calling range preflop is wide, as we have no specific reads on him. Suited connectors, all pocket pairs, suited broadways, sneaky AA/KK and air looking to make a move are all more than possible. For this reason, when we make a bet, our hand strength is totally unknown, becuase we are playing against such a wide range - not just of cards, but of possible moves he can pull on us.

In this case, he misses whatever he was looking for and folds, but note that the fact we have 99 is irrelevant. We could make this move with any two.</font>


Hand 2: We 3bet and cbet, he shoves

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $2</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, MP calls.

Flop: ($12) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $10</font>, <font color="red">MP raises to $44 and is All-In</font>,

(34 for Hero to call into 66, pot odds 1.94:1, 65:34, need 34% to breakeven)

Net amount invested: $16 -$50
Net amount won: $?
Hand strength certainty: Average - Poor

<font color="blue">Again, we play against a very wide range. He can have us crushed, or he can be making a move with any two, figuring that we are FOS. We need 34% equity to breakeven, but the point is, you are essentially paying your whole stack without ever really knowing what the hell you are up against. Remember this guys no maniac, but he can make moves. How do you know what he has? A very difficult decision, and a very expensive one - consider that if you fold here, you have invested $16 into a hand where you can still not be any surer that you were behind on the flop than you were preflop.</font>


Hand 3: We 3bet and cbet, he calls

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $2</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, MP calls.

Flop: ($12) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $10</font>, MP Calls $10

Turn: ($32) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)

<font color="red">Hero?</font> (remaining stacks: $34)

Net amount invested: $16
Net amount won: $?
Hand strength certainty: Totally unknown

<font color="blue">Now this is a horrible situation to be in. We have a PSB left, are OOP, and have no idea in hell where we stand. If we check, any bet he makes is going to commit us. Do we bet again? Do we shove? Was he floating with a smaller pair, or does he have the nuts? If we check and he bets or shoves, is he bluffing? How often is he bluffing? Why does he float the flop?

You are literally having to commit your entire stack without knowing a single thing about whether you are behind or not. We have not defined villains hand at all, we are in a huge pot, and we are stuck. Remember, villain plays well - his range is totally polarised - nuts or nothing. Thats what you should be trying to do, polarise your range, because you can see how hard it is to play against.</font>



Now lets take a look at when we just call preflop.



Hand 1 : We just call preflop, c/c flop

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $2</font>, Hero calls $2.

Flop: ($4) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
Hero checks, <font color="red">MP bets $3</font>, Hero calls $3.

Turn: ($10) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)
Hero checks

Net amount invested so far: $5
Hand strength certainty: Unknown

<font color="blue">His range is currently any hand which he would raise from MP. Note that we can't narrow that range down because this is a great flop to cbet. But look what has changed between just calling preflop and 3betting:

1. We've only invested $5 so far.
2. We've made it to the turn, meaning there are only two streets left to play
3. Its going to be near impossible for villain to get our whole stack, unless he overbets somwhere
4. We can get further in the hand, and improve our hand strength certainty, for a fraction of the price of 3betting.

Im not going to focus on when he checks behind the flop, because then we can just check our way to freedom. I'll focus only on what happens when he cbets the flop, because I think that's what he does 90% of the time.

So lets look at some turn situations.</font>


Hand 1a: He bets the turn, and we call

Flop: ($4) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
Hero checks, <font color="red">MP bets $3</font>, Hero calls $3.

Turn: ($10) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)
Hero checks, <font color="red">MP bets $7</font>, Hero calls $7.

Net amount invested so far: $12
Hand strength certainty: Good

<font color="blue">Note that I've listed our certainty as "good". Why? Because now we have a lot of questions that we can answer about what he is doing. Questions like:

1. Is this a good card to be doubling on?
2. How aggressive is he by street, what is his turn AF?
3. What is his went to SD?
4. What is his bet river %age?
5. How likely is he to bet the river if we call here? Could he ever bluff the river?

Question 5 is important because its a very specific one and usually pretty easy to answer. It takes a very, very specific and competent type of villain to triple barrel this board with a hand worse than 99. Its almost impossible, imo, to face a bet on the river and not know what to do, because he HAS to put us on at least KQ, or we could be trapping with a set. If he bets the river for value, its strong value, and even if its thin value, its a damn sight fatter than 99. So...</font>


River: ($24) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Hero checks, <font color="red">MP bets $18</font>, Hero folds.

Net amount invested so far: $12
Hand strength certainty: Excellent

<font color="blue">...we make an easy river fold. Our certainty is excellent, AND, more importantly, we save $4! We gain a much higher quality of information for a discount price, without ever having to worry about playing for stacks when we dont know where we stand. Of course if he behaves like we expect, this will happen a lot:</font>


River: ($24) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Hero checks, MP checks.

Net amount invested so far: $12
Hand strength certainty: 100% Certain

Results: $24 Pot
MP showed Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif A/images/graemlins/heart.gif (High card, Ace) and LOST
Hero showed 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif (One pair, Nines) and WON



<font color="blue">Ship it.</font>


Now I'm not saying that this is gospel, or that its how you should definitely play, or that this is the only way to play these hands. Of course the following things are crucial:

1. Villain tendencies
2. Session dynamics
3. Table image
4. Flop, turn and river texture

and so on. There are also times where you can be sure enough of your villain to 3bet 99 from the blinds for value and check fold the flop. But I do definitely think that to say that 3betting mediocre one pair hands from the blinds is mandatory is short sighted, and I hope that in this post I have shown that you can hugely increase the quality of the information you receive, and drastically lower the price of that information, having never to worry about playing for stacks, all just by not 3betting preflop.

Let the discussions begin....

[Gelford]

tl;dr

But in the blind without reading the post, there is a stat missing in your post, which is attempt to steal.

Vs an aggro villian, I will 3bet.

vs a medium villian I might just call.

Vs a tight villian i might still call or fold.



There is a certain dynamic ingredient here, but I feel that many might overestimate 99/TT in these spots (or I underestimate it). Also TT is NOT = 99 imo. as there are plenty of mediums card flops, where a T hits vilians range (QT, JT, T8s, etc), but the is not the case then holding TT.

[ama0330]

[ QUOTE ]
tl;dr

But in the blind without reading the post, there is a stat missing in your post, which is attempt to steal.

Vs an aggro villian, I will 3bet.

vs a medium villian I might just call.

Vs a tight villian i might still call or fold.



There is a certain dynamic ingredient here, but I feel that many might overestimate 99/TT in these spots (or I underestimate it). Also TT is NOT = 99 imo. as there are plenty of mediums card flops, where a T hits vilians range (QT, JT, T8s, etc), but the is not the case then holding TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the post man, ffs

[Spurious]

First of all, nice post!

I prefer 3betting strong PPs like 99,TT from the blinds, just to get control over the pot and get value from my hands.

I think your cbets are way to big for a 3bet pot. You can cbet 1/2-2/3 pot and he'll fold his missed PP or AQ or whatever.
So we have a lot more than just one PSB on the turn.

[traz]

I usually don't 3bet mid pairs unless I know a player will call with worse (or call with overs and then cf if he misses).

Without that info, I'll call and play poker (ha hi pokey!)

[ama0330]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, nice post!

I prefer 3betting strong PPs like 99,TT from the blinds, just to get control over the pot and get value from my hands.

I think your cbets are way to big for a 3bet pot. You can cbet 1/2-2/3 pot and he'll fold his missed PP or AQ or whatever.
So we have a lot more than just one PSB on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $2</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, MP calls.

Flop: ($12) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $8</font>, MP Calls $8

Turn: ($28) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)

<font color="red">Hero?</font> (remaining stacks: $36)

Doesn't look much different to me, still pot committed with 2 streets to play

[munkey]

I've been thinking/talking about this recently but haven;t quite got my thoughts up together. I play it based on villian as per gelford except I call more often vs loose aggros -basically 3bet if i think I'm vastly ahead of villain's range when the flop comes down i.e. they'll felt 7xx flop with 87 or I have FE from the 3bet or fcbet.

One benefit of TT/99 vs other 3bet hands is vs some villans 3bet calling range they dominate 88-55 and we either flop or miss so it's a relatively easy hand to get away from if we have to.

[Spurious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, nice post!

I prefer 3betting strong PPs like 99,TT from the blinds, just to get control over the pot and get value from my hands.

I think your cbets are way to big for a 3bet pot. You can cbet 1/2-2/3 pot and he'll fold his missed PP or AQ or whatever.
So we have a lot more than just one PSB on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $2</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, MP calls.

Flop: ($12) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $8</font>, MP Calls $8

Turn: ($28) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)

<font color="red">Hero?</font> (remaining stacks: $36)

Doesn't look much different to me, still pot committed with 2 streets to play

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes a small difference, but it's neglible, you're right.
But I think we can shut down here.
If he folds to a c/r we might do this, but i am shutting down nearly everytime i get called on the flop.

Your investment argument is right, but without control over the pot, we have to fold to most of his turnbets.

Btw:
Why is his bet sizing so small compared to yours?

[Gelford]

[quote
Read the post man, ffs

[/ QUOTE ]


FFS [censored] diagf [censored] .. yo! just sneak peaking quickly at work

[fees]

a lot of thinking went into this, more than need be.

Theres alot of math analysis here but I assume most of you guys play so many tables and your player pools are so big that you wont have built history where you can figure out what the hell do to in marginal type situations. Basically if you are far enough ahead of his range and its hard to play if you do anything but b/f, just 3b and b/f this flop all day. Also if he calls give up no matter what (cept a 9ball)

[Dr_Doctr]

There's no need to get annoyed and delete my small joke - I enjoyed the post and was about to comment.

I agree with most of what you say but it's discussed in a void. 3-betting with small/medium pocket pairs has other, significant, benefits. It disguises your 3-bets with monsters - if you're not 3-betting with 99/TT there isn't much you're 3-betting with. If you flop a set it's much easier to get paid off if Villian spikes TP or whatever. It's great for your image. It defines Villians range - you widen your 3-bet range from the blinds and he'll have to narrow his steal range - you can then get a better read. This is similar to what Gelford suggested about adjusting your range for these plays based on aggressiveness of Villian. Also I think consideration of this kind of theory is only useful against good regulars, of which there are precious few in the micros.

Of much more importance is recognising very weak players, figuring out in what way they are bad, and exploiting this correctly. Learning to truely exploit very weak players is a much more important skill that squeezing out marginal EV against regulars I think - and this probably applies for all limits. If you're playing with a bunch of good regulars you're in a bad game. If you're playing with a bunch of good regulars at a micro game it's a 2+2 invitational or something. This is not to take away from the value of the discussion in your post only from it's scope of application.

[ama0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is his bet sizing so small compared to yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt. If you mean the $7 on the turn, you can make it 8 or whatever, and you can make the cbet £3.50 or $4, but it makes no difference

[corsakh]

Did not read all, but I don't think your fair in the assessment of the villain. In particular his frequences.

There are generally three types of regualrs.

First type is on a nitty side. He is going to raise 30% OTB but only play back with say 3% of his range. He does not adjust. You can raise almost ATC against him and there is little need to balance. You show immediate profit preflop and when he calls you can safely c/f. Our hand is irrelevant. 3betting TT probably is a waste from value point of view, however I am not sure how well I can play it from OOP.

Second type is a tagfish. He calls for set value, flush value, implied odds value, bla bla bla. He plays small PP and SC cos he has position. He raises 30% he calls 15%. He folds most of the flop cos he misses. He goes bananas on some flops because he hit his set or two pair. He calls with top pair, middle pair and draws. Typical, very easy to adjust. Three bet, see the flop and play poker as if stacks were 3 times smaller. Playing this type of guys is like playing a 30BB stack. He is a live straddle in LP. Your are ahead of his range. TT has value and is important because his range has lots of 89, KQ nad 66 types of hands.

Third type is a proper adjusting TAG who is going to 4bet you pre and call/shove/float flops. Against this sort of player you need reads and analysis. He uses position to the max. Both raised and reraised pots with TT gonna be equally hard. The reason I prefer 3bet pots is that this negates his positional advantage and gives him less room to maneuver. Best advice imho in this spot is either don't interfere (play TT purely for set/overcards value) or change the tables. If you decide to clash, I prefer 3betting for stated reasons. You have to adjust your ranges accordingly of course. And of course, implied profit from AA/KK is the absolute deciding factor here.

But I have to admit it has a lot to do with the table dynamics, your playstyle, your cbet, 3bet, float frequencies and rangesm how comfortable you feel playing a particular hand against a particular type of villain form OOP, etc /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fees]

fwiw calling here is bad agaisnt literally any single player even with a small prf raise over a medium sized sample without a read that he minraised AA or something prf. Typically you can interpret prf minraises as weakness, imo you are DEF ahead of his range so you want to 3b

[Spurious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is his bet sizing so small compared to yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt. If you mean the $7 on the turn, you can make it 8 or whatever, and you can make the cbet £3.50 or $4, but it makes no difference

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right again, just though the river bet was so much bigger than his bets before, but it makes sense.

[creamfillin]

I think Gelford summed it up nicely.

Positional aggressor - 3-bet
Unknown - I prefer call
Tightish-TAG player - Call CO raise, 3-bet button open

If I have 99 on KTxr board in a 3-bet pot and I get action I'm done with the hand. I think a more interesting situation would be if the flop came all rags like:

3s 5h 8c

Hero leads for 2/3rds pot
TAG calls

What's your plan for an overcard/brick on the turn?

Or how about a flop with an overcard and a flush-draw like:

4c 8s Qs

Hero leads for 2/3rds pot
TAG calls or raises...

plan for brick turn?

[vieira10]

I tend to just call with midpairs in the blinds. The fact that I'm out of position is my main reason. Your more likely to make mistakes OOP, especially against a competent villain. Obviously, the bigger the pot the bigger your mistakes become. Also, against a good villain (who floats a decent %age), you cant narrow down his range until you get to the turn.

The factors that would tilt into 3betting out of the blinds are:

I've seen villain fold to 3bets a good %age of the time, even in position.

If he doesnt float a lot.

And if i really think he is super weak-tight and I can run him over on later streets.

[kroeliewoelie]

My analysis:

MP opens
22+,A8s+,KTs+,QJs,T9s,98s, AJo+,KJo+ = 181 combinations

If we 3bet:
4bets: QQ+,AKs = 22 combinations. We fold.
calls: 77-JJ,AQ+,98s,T9s = 61 combinations
folds: everything else = 98 combinations
EV(MP folds/4bets)= 22/181*(-6)+ 98/181*2 = -0.72+1.08=0.36

On the flop:
We cbet, he
calls: JJ,TT(will raise turn),T9 = 16 (our equity 9%, assume 0%)
raises: AKo = 12
folds: AQ,98s,77-99 = 33
EV(calls preflop; call+raise+fold)=(16+12)/181*(-12) + 33/181*6 = -1.81+1.09 = -0.79

Total EV=-0.43

So 3betting against this range doesn't seem to be profitable. But if we were up against a loose button raiser who also raises 56s-78s, A2s-A7s, A8o-ATo+,98o and other stuff we can add at least 100 handcombinations to his range that he will have to fold preflop.

In that case the total EV is
22/281*(-2)+28/281*(-12)+33/281*(6)+198/281*2=
-0.15-1.2+0.7+1.4 = 0.75.

So when the openraiser has a tight range, 3betting is not good. If he's looser 3betting is +EV. On top of that calling is worse in the second case, because a lot of his range won't stack off if we hit a set.

[traz]

Some of these EV calculations are bad because we're not really concerned with the EV we get from stealing his raise. It negates the value out of our hand and is identical to 3betting with 72.

What's relevant is his calling range...his opening range is pretty useless.

[kroeliewoelie]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of these EV calculations are bad because we're not really concerned with the EV we get from stealing his raise. It negates the value out of our hand and is identical to 3betting with 72.

What's relevant is his calling range...his opening range is pretty useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how often do you get to showdown? If your not doing anything fancy that is not very often. In less than 10% of the cases the hand gets past the flop i.e. MP calls both preflop and on the flop. In these cases we have 9% equity, so our hand doesn't have much value. Our hand is only valuable when both we and MP are getting fancy.

[traz]

what?

[andy099]

I tend to 3 bet 9's and 10's always unless there has been a 3 bet already in which case i evaluate the personnel involved in pot. I though primarily play on the deep stacks tables (200bb) which i think varies play immensely. with only 100bbs people are more likely to 4 bet ak or raise all in your flop bet which unless you flop a set puts you in a uncomfortable spot. With 200bb's it isn't so simple for villain when i 3 bet, bet out flop and bet turn if board is favourable because they are playing for twice as much and i'm the one putting them to the decision. By simply calling in the blinds with 99 or 1010 is bad because you have no easy way of deducing the strength of their hand or yours( a fundamental problem of playing oop) Simply calling down with one overcard or no overcards is very read dependent on the villain in question and surely as you move up the stakes, opponents are going to be better in general and 3 barrel dangerous cards. Obviously you have to put into consideration the person opening the pot, calling is obviously better against someone who opens 5% of hands.

By 3 betting OOP you take the iniative in the pot and when you cbet the flop your opponent has to put in half or all his stack to find out where he is whereas you have only put in a small amount and going on reads you can decide whether to call all ins etc. 9's and 10's are going to be ahead of the range of almost every villain so even oop 3 betting imo is warranted. Also when playing OOP it is harder to disguise your hands so when you flop a set of 9's and 10's your are less likely to get payed of from a decent villain who hits tptk whereas when you 3 bet generally villain is getting all in when he hits tp/overpair and you hit a set. IMO by being the aggressor in the hand you put your opponent to making a decision, the times you will take down the pot with a cbet or flop a set/overpair(read dependednt) and stack your opponent will far outweigh the times you lose money by cbetting and him calling/raising and you having to fold. Apologies if this is rambled [censored]

Here's a pot that went down well for me when i 3 bet 99's

Full Tilt Poker, $0.15/$0.30 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
LeggoPoker.com (http://www.leggopoker.com) - Hand History Converter (http://www.leggopoker.com/hh)

UTG: $177.50
MP: $85.80
CO: $96.45
BTN: $60.85
Hero (SB): $58.35
BB: $63.90

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
2 folds, <font color="red">CO raises to $1.05</font>, BTN folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $3.55</font>, BB folds, CO calls $2.50

Flop: ($7.40) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $6</font>, <font color="red">CO raises to $25.40</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $54.80 and is All-In</font>, CO calls $29.40

Turn: ($117) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: ($117) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $117 Pot ($3 Rake)
CO showed T/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/heart.gif (King Queen high) and LOST (-$58.35 NET)
Hero showed 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (three of a kind, Nines) and WON $114 (+$55.65 NET)

I think

[traz]

In that case, the 3bet is good because he called you with a bad hand. So go ahead and 3bet that guy.

That being said, the hand would have played out identically had you not 3bet...you see that right?

[ama0330]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, the hand would have played out identically had you not 3bet...you see that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Milky]

[ QUOTE ]

What's relevant is his calling range...his opening range is pretty useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so key. You 3bet w/99/TT only if 99/TT is ahead of his 3bet CALLING range. If he's only calling with TT+/AK then it's better just to call, as you're basically turning your hand (which has a lot of value) into a bluff.

The same goes for 3betting small/mid pocket pairs. I used to do this to blind steals but after talking through it with my coach (yay free coaching, thanks Luke) you're basically turning those hands into bluffs, when they have way too much value.

Your 3bet range should be pretty polarized between pure bluffs (54s-98s type hands) and TT+,AQs+ and should be adjusted based on how your opponent plays. If his opening range is wide but his 3bet CALLING range is tight, then you can add more bluffs to your 3bet range. If he's calling 3bets loose then you need to tighten up your bluffs and stick to value bets, but at the same time lower your 3bet standards (so include hands like 99/TT, AQ, KQ, sometimes even AJs/KJs. It all depends on their 3bet calling range).

[kroeliewoelie]

[ QUOTE ]
what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you mean with this post, but if your not understanding mine, I'll explain further.

1) opening range is important. if villain opens only AA are you going to 3bet?
2) calling range is a subset of opening range, so assigning opening range does matter.
3) if villain doesn't float etc postflop and throws away his marginal holdings preflop, 3betting isn't profitable. he won't fold enough and against his calling/raising range we lose too often.
4) If villain starts doing fancy things like: call with 22 preflop or call with AQ postflop. we start to gain showdown equity. In those cases hand value becomes important. And because this will sometimes happen 99&gt;&gt;&gt;72o.
5) in the end I believe 3betting is justified by fold equity, metagame considerations, and showdown value against FPS players.

[traz]

All of your points deal with calling range. Every single one of them.

[andy099]

[ QUOTE ]
In that case, the 3bet is good because he called you with a bad hand. So go ahead and 3bet that guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya we both flop big hands but that being said against passive villains i will likely get two streets of value whereas by 3 betting preflop i have more money in the pot so villain more inclined to shove/ get all in on the flop.

Ya i missed the thing about villains 3 bet calling ranges. This is also important. If your 3 betting and they're calling with smaller pp's this is going to be a mistake mathematically(100bb) and at lower stakes you see more people call 3 bets with dominated hands.

[Quester]

This thread points out one of the biggest reasons PokerTracker needs 3-bet and call 3-bet as stats. I can't wait for PokerTracker 3 to come out. I'm always lost in this situation, so I default to 3-betting loose players with a high FCB% and just flat calling tough players, looking to hit a set, see a cheap showdown, or take it away from him on the turn.

[ama0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What's relevant is his calling range...his opening range is pretty useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so key. You 3bet w/99/TT only if 99/TT is ahead of his 3bet CALLING range. If he's only calling with TT+/AK then it's better just to call, as you're basically turning your hand (which has a lot of value) into a bluff.

The same goes for 3betting small/mid pocket pairs. I used to do this to blind steals but after talking through it with my coach (yay free coaching, thanks Luke) you're basically turning those hands into bluffs, when they have way too much value.

Your 3bet range should be pretty polarized between pure bluffs (54s-98s type hands) and TT+,AQs+ and should be adjusted based on how your opponent plays. If his opening range is wide but his 3bet CALLING range is tight, then you can add more bluffs to your 3bet range. If he's calling 3bets loose then you need to tighten up your bluffs and stick to value bets, but at the same time lower your 3bet standards (so include hands like 99/TT, AQ, KQ, sometimes even AJs/KJs. It all depends on their 3bet calling range).

[/ QUOTE ]

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
All of your points deal with calling range. Every single one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

yah.

1) we have a K alot so he can't mess with us (and have an 'unknown' range) anywhere near as much as you claim. note this is not us bluffing so much as our range is less bluffable than you suggest therefore playing the hand for value is easier.

2) isn't this almost exactly the same hand if we have QQ?

3) i think you have to realise the benefits of threebetting do not come in the situation you described (get called, two overs flop). ignoring metagame benefits a raise is fine for value because then he is making a mistake if he starts calling with one overcard. basically when we call pre in this example, his range has more kings in it than it does when we reraise. we are happy to take it down pre, but we have plenty of equity if called.

[kroeliewoelie]

[ QUOTE ]
All of your points deal with calling range. Every single one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do, but they also deal with opening range. But I disagree with your statement that opening range range is useless. But you know that yourself, so let's not continue this useless discussion over such an unimportant point.

[Bowlboy]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread points out one of the biggest reasons PokerTracker needs 3-bet and call 3-bet as stats. I can't wait for PokerTracker 3 to come out. I'm always lost in this situation, so I default to 3-betting loose players with a high FCB% and just flat calling tough players, looking to hit a set, see a cheap showdown, or take it away from him on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took a good break from poker in the summer but have recently got back into it, but not too much time for 2p2. Anyhow, I too cant wait for PT to come out with 3betting and calling 3bet %'s. However, there is what I consider to be a decent way of getting a rough idea of what they're 3betting calling range is without this stat. On my HUD i like having the cpfr stat. For a lot of the decent players that will give you value from stealing this stat is somewhere between 5-10%. You have to figure that they are calling 3bets with less than whatever this is. What I look for in this situation is villains' stealing range to be much higher than what he would have called a preflop raise with. If they fold to cbets most of the time this makes restealing very profitable. There are a lot of multitablers in the micros that play so ABC that 3betting in position with any pp +EV because they're raising range is often 2-3times &gt; than they're cpfr range. 3betting narrows that down even further. This isnt always accurate, as some players just cant seem to make a good laydown preflop when somebody 3bets them but for the most part it's worked for me.

[kav]

[ QUOTE ]
This is so key. You 3bet w/99/TT only if 99/TT is ahead of his 3bet CALLING range. If he's only calling with TT+/AK then it's better just to call, as you're basically turning your hand (which has a lot of value) into a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. Even if I know my opponent is only calling with TT+/AK I still show a profit 3betting.

If he opens with 25% of his hands but only calls with TT+/AK (14% of the hands he is opening with), I'm winning his PFR plus blinds 86% of the time and losing my 3bet only 14%.

Plus, the times he does call I have a big information advantage that I can play my hand almost perfectly if I hit the flop.

Am I missing something here? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Cheers!

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]

What's relevant is his calling range...his opening range is pretty useless.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not accurate. As a ridiculous hypothetical that gets my point across, imagine you have two players:

Player 1: Raises any two cards, calls a three-bet with only AA.
Player 2: Raises only AA, calls any three-bet.

Can you see how a preflop three-bet would be standard with ATC against one of them but would never be +EV against the other? Same calling range, different opening range, TOTALLY different implications.

Opening range is just as important as calling range, and just because your bet derives some of its value from folding equity does not mean that you are turning your hand into a pure bluff. Raising with 99 is better than raising with 72o because 99 is much more likely to hit the flop well.

It's all about folding equity until your opponent pushes; then it's all about hand strength. That won't happen often, but when it does I'd sure rather have a good hand than a bad one.

[traz]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of these EV calculations are bad because we're not really concerned with the EV we get from stealing his raise. It negates the value out of our hand and is identical to 3betting with 72.

What's relevant is his calling range...his opening range is pretty useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[traz]

opening range is relevant when you're trying to resteal, but that shouldn't be our goal here (imo). Yes, it's +ev, go ahead and resteal with junk. But mid-high pp's have too much equity to do it with. You're folding out crap hands that will cbet and give you even more money.

I don't claim it's -ev, I claim it's less optimal.

[iheartponeez]

I like to feel partially responsible for this sweeto post!

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of these EV calculations are bad because we're not really concerned with the EV we get from stealing his raise. It negates the value out of our hand and is identical to 3betting with 72.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also negates his bluffing power in the more-than-half the time when an overcard hits.

It also negates the RIO we suffer when our opponent connects with K3 on the K6T board and we pay off flop, turn, and river bets and lose 40 BBs instead of winning 5.

It also prevents him from stealing as much, which is of value to us when we're in the blinds.

It also earns us more money when we three-bet with KK and AA.

It also disguises our hands more so that our preflop response to a raise doesn't strongly narrow our hand range.

There are many benefits to three-betting lighter from the blinds preflop even if those bets are not steals. I would never three-bet 72o from the blinds, because I see little payoff from bluffing OOP. Keeping a tighter three-bet range gets me more respect when I three-bet, so I get more folding equity, which is +EV. When I AM called, I've still got a good chance at buying the pot on the flop because my opponents know I wouldn't have three-bet with ATC. Then, when I'm called on the flop, I've still got a chance to have a great hand, which is far more likely with 99 than with 72.

Most frequent stealers will only fold to a three-bet about 2/3rds of the time or so -- the remaining time you've actually got to have something to win it. I prefer starting with strong cards so that when I'm called I'm more likely to be in a happy place down the road when the decision about my stack comes.

[traz]

[ QUOTE ]
It also negates his bluffing power in the more-than-half the time when an overcard hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, if you are against a habitual 2-barreler then I can see merit in this arguement. However we WANT him to bluff the flop. That's $$$$.

[ QUOTE ]

It also negates the RIO we suffer when our opponent connects with K3 on the K6T board and we pay off flop, turn, and river bets and lose 40 BBs instead of winning 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no RIO here unless you plan on calling down 3 streets, which probably isn't a good idea. 2 streets, maybe, depending on opponent, but then that's when you hve to know your opponent and his 2-barrel tendencies. Yes, risky...but yes, profitable.

[ QUOTE ]

It also prevents him from stealing as much, which is of value to us when we're in the blinds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but 3betting with other hands in other situations achieves the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]

It also earns us more money when we three-bet with KK and AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as above.

[ QUOTE ]


It also disguises our hands more so that our preflop response to a raise doesn't strongly narrow our hand range.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has merit. I agree that our hand becomes quite transparent to a good player. This can be balanced by taking the same line with some other hands and also by doing this against tagfish who don't have a clue anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer starting with strong cards so that when I'm called I'm more likely to be in a happy place down the road when the decision about my stack comes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of my point...once you're called, your hand isn't strong relative to his anymore.



In the end, I'm saying there are different ways to play and there's nothing really wrong with calling provided it fits with your overall gameplan. I just don't want people to think one line is correct and see 99 in the blinds and automatically think 3bet.

[john voight]

n post
putting it into mathematical terms, instead of theoretical ideas is very useful for me.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread points out one of the biggest reasons PokerTracker needs 3-bet and call 3-bet as stats. I can't wait for PokerTracker 3 to come out. I'm always lost in this situation, so I default to 3-betting loose players with a high FCB% and just flat calling tough players, looking to hit a set, see a cheap showdown, or take it away from him on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

get Holdem Manager beta version for free and you can get these stats now. http://www.holdemmanager.net/

fwiw my rr frequency with 99-JJ is about 70% lifetime but my sample sizes are probably too small to compare results between calling and re-raising.

[corsakh]

I'll sup up my thoughts one more time:

TT-99 plays better vs a loose preflop caller in 3bet pots than in raised pots because:

- it gives you initiative
- makes moneys preflop
- takes away caller's positional advanatage
- makes it hard for him to bluff represent an overcard on the flop
- gives you good implied profit from AA/KK
- makes later streets much easier to play

[inverted]

how does this change if villain pots flop and turn and regularly does so. So flop bet becomes $4 and turn bet becomes $12. This then becomes $18 which is cheaper than 3bettnig then betting the flop for around 1/2.

[members_only]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 2: We 3bet and cbet, he shoves

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9 9 dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, MP raises to $2, Hero raises to $6, MP calls.

Flop: ($12) K 6 T (2 Players)
Hero bets $10, MP raises to $44 and is All-In,

(34 for Hero to call into 66, pot odds 1.94:1, 65:34, need 34% to breakeven)

Net amount invested: $16 -$50
Net amount won: $?
Hand strength certainty: Average - Poor

Again, we play against a very wide range. He can have us crushed, or he can be making a move with any two, figuring that we are FOS. We need 34% equity to breakeven, but the point is, you are essentially paying your whole stack without ever really knowing what the hell you are up against. Remember this guys no maniac, but he can make moves. How do you know what he has? A very difficult decision, and a very expensive one - consider that if you fold here, you have invested $16 into a hand where you can still not be any surer that you were behind on the flop than you were preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can be a lot surer that you are behind than you were preflop. How can you assume that his range for shoving over your bet on this flop = his range for calling your 3-bet pre?

Also, why do you have to bet this flop anyway?

[members_only]

[ QUOTE ]


Hand 3: We 3bet and cbet, he calls

UTG (UTG): $50
MP (MP): $50
CO (CO): $50
BTN (BTN): $50
SB (SB): $50
Hero (BB): $50

Pre-Flop: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif dealt to Hero (SB)
3 folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $2</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, MP calls.

Flop: ($12) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $10</font>, MP Calls $10

Turn: ($32) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)

<font color="red">Hero?</font> (remaining stacks: $34)

Net amount invested: $16
Net amount won: $?
Hand strength certainty: Totally unknown

<font color="blue">Now this is a horrible situation to be in. We have a PSB left, are OOP, and have no idea in hell where we stand. If we check, any bet he makes is going to commit us. Do we bet again? Do we shove? Was he floating with a smaller pair, or does he have the nuts? If we check and he bets or shoves, is he bluffing? How often is he bluffing? Why does he float the flop?

You are literally having to commit your entire stack without knowing a single thing about whether you are behind or not. We have not defined villains hand at all, we are in a huge pot, and we are stuck. Remember, villain plays well - his range is totally polarised - nuts or nothing. Thats what you should be trying to do, polarise your range, because you can see how hard it is to play against.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

???

[Profish2285]

I probably c-bet that flop with 99, but I make it like 7. The difference may not seem that big but now we knocked down our investment to 13 which is only 1 buck more than we would have following the other scenario. I think the extra dollar is more than made up for by initiative as well as the times villain folds pf. You can argue that we got to the turn though for cheaper but if we play the hand by 3 betting, we arent getting the turn too often anyway. Assuming we do, our hand is over and we have the same info for a buck more. However, we increased our chances of taking the hand down overall pf and on the flop by being aggressive. If we just c/c we are letting him draw to outs and we really dont know where we are. It might be me but I am nowhere close to comfortable calling two bets with 99 on a KTx flop. Just my 2 cents.

[Peter Harris]

Corsakh's first reply summed up my doubts about the post, fwiw. There's a debate worth pursuing. If I had breakfast maybe I would.