Minimum HU pot equity needed to 3-bet preflop

[efficacy]

I'm trying to fine tune my preflop game.

Let's say a player with known VPIP/PFR opens in MP in a 6-handed game. It is fairly trivial for me to identify his range of hands. Against this range of hands, I will be 3-betting with hands that have greater than x% pot equity, and almost always folding hands that have less than x% pot equity. What should x be and why?

Some variables that I know are important but not sure exactly how they affect the outcome:

1) How well the opponent plays postflop
2) How showdown prone the opponent is
3) How tight / loose the blinds are

Another question: Is it true that some hands that have less pot equity will play better postflop and should be 3-bet, while other hands that may have slightly better pot equity should be folded?

Any thoughts or insights are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Ryan

[baronzeus]

it's actually kind of counter-intuitive. against player who are tighter postflop (who are mostly the TAGs) you should be 3betting more liberally.

against players who are looser postflop and showdown liberally (including loose passives, LAGs, etc), just calling preflop and checkraising good flops/turns is better.


this is not to say that their preflop looseness doesn't matter. obviously if a very tight postflop player has a PFR of 5, you don't want to go about 3betting him. but for the most part, this is an extreme case and postflop tendencies should be the key factor in making decisions

[efficacy]

[ QUOTE ]
it's actually kind of counter-intuitive. against player who are tighter postflop (who are mostly the TAGs) you should be 3betting more liberally.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense to me. When you say liberally, how big is your 'x'? Are you 3-betting hands with x < 50% because of the added fold equity?

Thanks,
Ryan

[helpmeout]

position - no good 3betting an MP raiser with a weakish hand from CO if button is loose

image - if you've 3bet the last few hands then this will make a difference, i try not to overdo it with weakish hands. the more you mess with them the more likely they are to call you down with their weak ace or even play back at you

Of course different hands have different values based on who you are up against. A weak ace is good against a passive player because you pretty much just want him to fold or get to showdown cheap. If the guy is agro then a weak ace isnt very good because you arent taking it to SD for multiple bets, a hand like QTs would be better because if you hit a big hand then you'll get paid off more and if he semibluffs/bluffs you usually have more outs to play with.

[baronzeus]

sorry, for some reason i thought this was about 3betting a PFR from the BB. a lot of the things i said still apply, but some of them make no sense whatsoever.

[The Bryce]

Hot / cold equity doesn't really mean anything. What you're worried about is actual equity, and how different actions will affect how often you win the pot overall and how many good bets go in, etc. While getting more money in with a hand that's going to be best if you two flipped your cards face up and then dealt the community cards is often a good idea, it really has nothing to do with a game where your opponent will often fold the best hand, bet several times with the worst hand or will attack back and try and take the pot away based on his particulars. What you expect to happen post-flop should very often dictate what you choose to do and what cards you choose to play pre-flop.