Small 4-Bets

[FionnMac]

jesus so many reg msnl posters are fkin terrible (no offence)

[bxb]

With 100bb stacks I don't understand why you would make a pot sized four bet. You can't fold to a shove so it is directly worse to a shove because you give him an additional option to call if that is advantageous for some reason.

[punter11235]

You can read some analysis of big vs small 4bets and 4bets in general at my blog

DISCLAIMER : It is still unedited. The blog is just starting and it completely sucks for now. No layaout, no look, no feel, no anything. Still there is some math for interested people [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[DLizzle]

i could make a defense for any 4bet size if you know what you're doing with it

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
i could make a defense for any 4bet size if you know what you're doing with it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is only true for 4bet sizes which allow you to fold profitably if you know for 100% that he is only pushing AA over it so "any" is a big of overstatement.

[Jinx]

[ QUOTE ]
You can blame CTS for this. Oh and please tell me how you're owning them.

[/ QUOTE ]

min 5 bet LDO

[craigmarq]

It allows you to adjust when you're getting 3 bet often by an opponent. Ex. You raise c/o to 14 button 3 bets you to 48. With a hand like 57s I'm way more likely to 4 bet to 138 than I am to call. People do not call you here. They either fold or shove. You obviously have to pick your spots, but it helps you mix up your game if you 4bet small with a wider range of hands.

C

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Ex. You raise c/o to 14 button 3 bets you to 48. With a hand like 57s I'm way more likely to 4 bet to 138 than I am to call. People do not call you here. They either fold or shove.

[/ QUOTE ]
138 is a lot different than 100-120 if you're looking for either value or FE from your 4-bet. I'd still prefer a poooosh b/c even at 138, you're approaching a pot-sized raise and are dangerously close to committing yourself anyway.

What still puzzles me though is how raising from 48 -> 100/120 could ever be the correct play. You're basically BEGGING to get called. Using the argument "I 4-bet small to allow myself to correctly fold to a push" is stupid with a big range of hands. If you're not raising enough to generate proper FE with your bluffs, you shouldn't be 4-betting/folding to a 5-bet with those hands in the first place.

I mean...I could be wrong, but you have to think about it this way: Top players have been making a solid 6-8 PTBB/100 (live pros even more) for a long time at MSNL without employing this "new strategy." It's hard to believe that CTS, et al came along and reinvented the wheel this year because all the past NL pros were too stupid to use this monster technique over the last 30 years.

[ogdundar]

Uhh... 3-betting light is relatively new also. So you're saying that adds nothing valuable to NL strategy either because they didn't do that earlier?

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ex. You raise c/o to 14 button 3 bets you to 48. With a hand like 57s I'm way more likely to 4 bet to 138 than I am to call. People do not call you here. They either fold or shove.

[/ QUOTE ]
138 is a lot different than 100-120 if you're looking for either value or FE from your 4-bet. I'd still prefer a poooosh b/c even at 138, you're approaching a pot-sized raise and are dangerously close to committing yourself anyway.

What still puzzles me though is how raising from 48 -> 100/120 could ever be the correct play. You're basically BEGGING to get called. Using the argument "I 4-bet small to allow myself to correctly fold to a push" is stupid with a big range of hands. If you're not raising enough to generate proper FE with your bluffs, you shouldn't be 4-betting/folding to a 5-bet with those hands in the first place.

I mean...I could be wrong, but you have to think about it this way: Top players have been making a solid 6-8 PTBB/100 (live pros even more) for a long time at MSNL without employing this "new strategy." It's hard to believe that CTS, et al came along and reinvented the wheel this year because all the past NL pros were too stupid to use this monster technique over the last 30 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

4betting small DOES have fold equity. Are you telling me if you're villain and you 3bet a $14 raise to $48 with a suited connector, small pair, or some other weakish hand you're calling $70 more? If so, obviously you're terrible and 4betting small with a wide range against you would be terrible. However, most tags do not just call there, although I have seen it happen with some tags. The overwhelming majority of the time they either fold or shove. The pros to 4betting small is that it's a cheap bluff, and I can also induce people to stack off with weaker hands than they would to a bigger sized 4bet (as in pot sized or a shove). I would be much more inclined to shove a hand like AQ/AJ if somebody 4bet me to $120 at $400nl rather than $160, because in the former case they left themselves room to possibly fold to a shove.

CTS didn't really invent small 4betting, although he is definitely one of if not the most notable player who employs this increasingly common strategy. To suggest that you're "owning" these small 4bettors is hilarious though. What, you picked up a few big pairs and shoved and they folded? If your 3betting range is wider than AA-QQ/AK you'll find yourself in some very difficult spots when faced with light 4bets when you have hands not at the top of your range. If you 3bet tons, then you're going to be doing it with a lot of marginal and weak hands, and going to have to get into a mindgame with another good player trying to counteract his light 4betting. Good luck with that!