A discussion with Corsakh - 3betting pairs from the blinds

[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 > 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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

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.