PDA

View Full Version : Article 5 - Discussion



Al1
11-11-2008, 11:13 AM
Hi,

Great work dudes!

Can you please developpe a little your concepts in the "To 3bet or Not To 3bet" section.

You say that 3betting a TAG who attempts to steal with a high fold to 3bet with Pocket 44s is good because you can induce folds from better hands (55-TT) and also hands like AJ, KQ, AT. Can you just explain me another time the reason to induce folds from AJ... :) (not a trap!)

And with pairs like 99 in the same situation, and suited connectors?

Thx

morny
11-11-2008, 03:36 PM
I cant think of another situation where id like to fold AJ by 3betting unless ive air or garbage and its really dependant on the how he reacts to 3bets but id like to hear your suggestion, the basic Theory is that you want him to fold out better hands in the case where your 3betting small pocket pairs, another reason is calling with small pocket pairs isnt going to be profitable OOP postflop as it can lead to difficult situations. Youll find alot of TAGs will fold small PP against good TAG's in this situation, 3betting is also another option if they fold alot however against someone that calls 3bets alot i wouldnt be too keen to 3bet a small PP especially if theyre unpredictable post flop in 3bet pots.

If ive 99 in that situation things change, 3betting now would almost turn my hand into a bluff as hes likely to fold 88 or worse and s/c etc, against AJ theres almost no difference between 44 and 99 but well never be able to narrow a range to just AJ so my 99 would play well against hes range in most cases where i can call and let him double barrell air, draws and weaker pairs.

Suited connectors are fine for 3betting in these scenario's, your obviously 3betting blufffing with the hope to hit a good flop if he does call and a fold here is always a good result, you could call occasionally if you feel you can outplay him with aggression postflop but be careful that if your calling here with s/c and PP's then your range is pretty narrow and its easy for a thinking TAG to double barrell on any board T or higher and when you do play back hell know youve a set or a big draw most of the time and its just not profitable to be putting yourself in these difficult situations.

With all these things the variables involved are extremely important, how often he 4bets, what hes like post flop, your image etc can all turn a standard situation into a completely different one. IMO i should add:D

Al1
11-11-2008, 08:14 PM
I cant think of another situation where id like to fold AJ by 3betting unless ive air or garbage and its really dependant on the how he reacts to 3bets but id like to hear your suggestion, the basic Theory is that you want him to fold out better hands in the case where your 3betting small pocket pairs, another reason is calling with small pocket pairs isnt going to be profitable OOP postflop as it can lead to difficult situations. Youll find alot of TAGs will fold small PP against good TAG's in this situation, 3betting is also another option if they fold alot however against someone that calls 3bets alot i wouldnt be too keen to 3bet a small PP especially if theyre unpredictable post flop in 3bet pots.

If ive 99 in that situation things change, 3betting now would almost turn my hand into a bluff as hes likely to fold 88 or worse and s/c etc, against AJ theres almost no difference between 44 and 99 but well never be able to narrow a range to just AJ so my 99 would play well against hes range in most cases where i can call and let him double barrell air, draws and weaker pairs.

Suited connectors are fine for 3betting in these scenario's, your obviously 3betting blufffing with the hope to hit a good flop if he does call and a fold here is always a good result, you could call occasionally if you feel you can outplay him with aggression postflop but be careful that if your calling here with s/c and PP's then your range is pretty narrow and its easy for a thinking TAG to double barrell on any board T or higher and when you do play back hell know youve a set or a big draw most of the time and its just not profitable to be putting yourself in these difficult situations.

With all these things the variables involved are extremely important, how often he 4bets, what hes like post flop, your image etc can all turn a standard situation into a completely different one. IMO i should add:D

(I didn't wanna say "only AJ" in my previous post but Big Cards like AJ :))

Yeha, thus 3betting with small pairs, is more a move to avoid troubles on the flop. It's almost a bluff no?
In case of a call, unless you flop a set, is there a flop texture to cbet with those 44, or I'm almost done.

About the 99 hand. I think this hand is more hard to play that 44 (considering the same logic) because you are somewhat in trouble against overcards on the flop and you can't really 3-bet for value or bluff preflop.

morny
11-12-2008, 12:33 AM
Yeah small PP are basically 3bet bluffs for the most part but it also helps keep our range polarised and avoid -EV situations by just calling since 3betting is hugely profitable this should in most cases be more profitable against people who play well postflop however as i said against someone who calls too much small PP are not a great hand to 3bet with

Well you cant cbet if you call preflop:D so i presume you mean call a Cbet, if i do call ill fold to a cbet if the flop is wet because even if were ahead theres so much that can outdraw us, on a dry board it depends on the villain, if he double barrells a high amount (i wouldnt probably call preflop if he did) i might just call him down occassionaly but most time id give up, against someone who dosent double barell ill call the flop more often and look for a cheap showdown but as you can imagine these are all pretty awkward situations so id try andf avoid them

I used to try something where i would call in the blinds with hands like AT, KJ, QT and even AQ sometimes. I done this against some TAGs because i knew a thinking TAG would put me on s/c or PP if i just call and not 3bet so when they double barrell on a KQx on AJx board because they think i cant call down with my PP then i win a nice pot plsu then i can call with small PP and they wont know if i have a small PP or a KJ, AJ type hand. After reviewing my results it wasnt very profitable overall so i still think 3betting small pairs is better against good aggressive Tags and calling is throwing away money.

For 99 its higher variance as youll sometimes call a double barrell on Q8X board but since most TAGs double barrell with a wide range and steal with a wide range then its usually profitable but yeah its a difficult situation because as you said 3betting is turning it into a bluff although to be honest against some people it wouldnt be, for example say someone has a really wide opening range and a big 4bet range lets say 15% id be looking to 3bet/Push with 99 here so in this case you could 3bet for value but again i wouldnt be so keen to 3bet if he calls 3bets too often. I guess if your just 3betting with air,monsters and small PP your range is very transparent when you call so you have to mix it up a bit too if your playing someone thats likley to be taking notes

Al1
11-12-2008, 02:58 AM
Yeah small PP are basically 3bet bluffs for the most part but it also helps keep our range polarised and avoid -EV situations by just calling since 3betting is hugely profitable this should in most cases be more profitable against people who play well postflop however as i said against someone who calls too much small PP are not a great hand to 3bet with

Well you cant cbet if you call preflop:D so i presume you mean call a Cbet, if i do call ill fold to a cbet if the flop is wet because even if were ahead theres so much that can outdraw us, on a dry board it depends on the villain, if he double barrells a high amount (i wouldnt probably call preflop if he did) i might just call him down occassionaly but most time id give up, against someone who dosent double barell ill call the flop more often and look for a cheap showdown but as you can imagine these are all pretty awkward situations so id try andf avoid them

I used to try something where i would call in the blinds with hands like AT, KJ, QT and even AQ sometimes. I done this against some TAGs because i knew a thinking TAG would put me on s/c or PP if i just call and not 3bet so when they double barrell on a KQx on AJx board because they think i cant call down with my PP then i win a nice pot plsu then i can call with small PP and they wont know if i have a small PP or a KJ, AJ type hand. After reviewing my results it wasnt very profitable overall so i still think 3betting small pairs is better against good aggressive Tags and calling is throwing away money.

For 99 its higher variance as youll sometimes call a double barrell on Q8X board but since most TAGs double barrell with a wide range and steal with a wide range then its usually profitable but yeah its a difficult situation because as you said 3betting is turning it into a bluff although to be honest against some people it wouldnt be, for example say someone has a really wide opening range and a big 4bet range lets say 15% id be looking to 3bet/Push with 99 here so in this case you could 3bet for value but again i wouldnt be so keen to 3bet if he calls 3bets too often. I guess if your just 3betting with air,monsters and small PP your range is very transparent when you call so you have to mix it up a bit too if your playing someone thats likley to be taking notes

Thx for this answere.

About that:

Well you cant cbet if you call preflop:D so i presume you mean call a Cbet
I was speaking about cbetting the flop in the case I 3bet and the stealer calls preflop.

morny
11-12-2008, 09:50 PM
Sorry, i didnt read it in context with the line above that question so i see what you mean now. Id Cbet as much as i would cbet in a standard pot for the same reasons we cbet in a standard pot although im done if i get called in most cases.

There would be very few situations actually i wouldnt cbet if i got called, maybe if my image was bad and id been 3betting alot and he was getting sick of it and likely to call or raise my cbet alot or it was a TAG that dosent call 3bets often and the flop is AKx KQx type hands but other than that it will be pretty profitable to cbet here against standard TAGs especially if they dont fold to 3bets too much (i.e fold to 3bet = 60% or less)

Al1
11-12-2008, 09:57 PM
Sorry, i didnt read it in context with the line above that question so i see what you mean now. Id Cbet as much as i would cbet in a standard pot for the same reasons we cbet in a standard pot although im done if i get called in most cases.

There would be very few situations actually i wouldnt cbet if i got called, maybe if my image was bad and id been 3betting alot and he was getting sick of it and likely to call or raise my cbet alot or it was a TAG that dosent call 3bets often and the flop is AKx KQx type hands but other than that it will be pretty profitable to cbet here against standard TAGs especially if they dont fold to 3bets too much (i.e fold to 3bet = 60% or less)

Hey thx!

I think you have to think about publishing an "Hold'em Manager Strategy Book", informations you give in your articles are awesome and I rarely have see so much infos concentrated like that. Furthermore, your infos are deep enough to be advanced concepts.

Great Job!

Al1

morny
11-12-2008, 10:05 PM
Thanks Alain, i used to have too much time on my hands lol. Most of these things are discussed in all the up and coming pluggin leaks series but were releasing them 1 at a time as Roy is adding his own thoughts and also backing this up with reasearh of a huge database of imported hands so i look forward to discussing the future ones and to hearing more of your thoughts

chopchoi
12-31-2008, 07:02 AM
Article 4 talked about how to adjust a players 3bet stats based on his position. I would like to know more about how to adjust a players raising range based on his position.

For example, if a player who is 22/17 raises from UTG, his range will be tighter than if he raises from MP. Also, a player stealing from the CO is likely to have a tighter range than when he steals from the button. But how much tighter? I'm also unsure how limpers affect a player's raising range.

morny
01-02-2009, 02:43 PM
The easiset way is to check hes PFR for that position and then youll see the % hes raising

Ajax
01-25-2010, 01:03 AM
EDIT: I think I made a mistake when I first made this post. See post #15 for a clearer statement of the question. Post #14 is good too.

You give an example with a player who folds to 3bets only 17% of the time. Because this is a big leak, your strategy would be to 4-bet/call a shove with a wider range, and possibly call some 3bets if you had seen him play 3bet pots poorly. I have a few questions about this example.

You did not give his fold-vs-steal%, but because it is in the examples with TAG players, we should conclude that he is folding 75%+ versus steals. Is that correct?

Your strategy is to 4-bet/call a shove with a wider range. How wide is your calling range against this player?

How wide would your calling range be if he folds to 3bets 24%?

How wide would your calling range be if he folds to 3bets 30%?

B-Money
01-25-2010, 03:25 PM
Responses bolded below:


You give an example with a player who folds to 3bets only 17% of the time. Because this is a big leak, your strategy would be to 4-bet/call a shove with a wider range, and possibly call some 3bets if you had seen him play 3bet pots poorly. I have a few questions about this example.

You did not give his fold-vs-steal%, but because it is in the examples with TAG players, we should conclude that he is folding 75%+ versus steals. Is that correct?
Steal % is an unknown here. If someone is only folding to a 3-bet 17% of the time, my guess is they also defend their blinds much more than the average person.

Your strategy is to 4-bet/call a shove with a wider range. How wide is your calling range against this player?
Depends on the situation. The advice is to open up your range, there is no defined range because there are still too many unknown variables.

How wide would your calling range be if he folds to 3bets 24%?
Depends on the situation. There is no exact range set. Only folding 24% to a 3-Bet is still 3X more than it should be so open up your range.

How wide would your calling range be if he folds to 3bets 30%?
Same as above. Fold to 3-Bet should be 75-80% Anything in the 40% plus range is someone who calls way too many 3-bets.

Ajax
01-26-2010, 08:19 AM
EDIT: I made another mistake here as well when I made this post. See post #15 for a clearer statement of the question. Post #14 is good too.

I think I made a mistake. He needs to fold to 4bets (not to 3bets) 17% of the time, and 24% of the time, and 30% of the time. Sorry about that.

Also note that the player we are facing usually does not call our 4-bet. He tends to usually shove or fold (but he does call sometimes of course).

What I want to do is make some comparative statemets. In other words, is it accurate to say that if he folds to 4bet 30%, we open up our calling range when he shoves; if he folds to 4bet 24%, we open up our range even more if he shoves; and if he folds to 4bet 17%, we open up our calling range even more than that if he shoves? That would be the general pattern, correct?

Ajax
01-28-2010, 12:42 AM
In order to be clear, here is some more information.

As stated in Article 5, opponent 3bets 10% from the SB. So we steal from the button, he 3bets 10% from the SB, and then sometimes we 4-bet. Because he usually does not fold to our 4-bet (only 17% or 24% or 30%) there is no reason for any of our 4-bets to be bluffs. My guess is that we should probably 4-bet only with the hands that we are willing to get all-in with.

The basic goal here is to determine, given how the player reacts to 4-bets (folds 17% or 24% or 30%), what range of hands that we can 4bet profitably with the intention of getting all-in for 100bb. This is the same question that was posed in Article 4. If we are playing 100NL, then our initial raise is to $4, SB reraises us to $14, and then we sometimes make a pot committing 4 bet (so we call if SB pushes). I indicated in my previous post that opponent does not call very often, but I guess that is not necessary for this example, because that restriction was not put on our opponent in Article 4. I also indicated that our opponent was shoving with his 3bet, but that would be a large overbet, and that is not how Article 4 is set up, so we need to remove that restriction as well so that the conditions are the same as they were in Article 4.

Is it correct to say that if opponent folds to 4bet 30%, we open up our 4bet range; if he folds to 4bet 24%, we open up our 4bet range even more; and if he folds to 4bet 17%, we open up our 4bet range even more than that? Is this correct, or is it wrong?

Ajax
02-05-2010, 11:46 PM
I am going to make another post just to make sure that my questions are stated clearly. (I hope this will be answered sometime soon.)

We steal from the button and opponent 3-bets from SB 10% of the time, and then sometimes we 4-bet a pot-committing amount. There are three cases of this. Opponent folds to 4-bet 30%, opponent folds to 4-bet 24%, and opponent folds to 4-bet 17%.

For each case, what range of hands can we 4bet profitably with the intention of getting all-in for 100bb? It is 100NL, stacks are $100, we open-raise from button to $4, and then 10% of the time SB reraises us to $14. Sometimes, when our hand is strong enough, we make a pot-committing 4-bet, but we base that decision on whether opponent folds to 4-bet 30%, or 24%, or 17%.

If the exact calculations for our three ranges cannot be made right now, then I would like to at least know this: Is it correct to say that if opponent folds to 4bet 30%, we open up our 4bet range; if he folds to 4bet 24%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN MORE; and if he folds to 4bet 17%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN MORE THAN THAT?

The calculations for determining our range in the above three cases would be similar to the calculations that were done in Article 4. I put this question in this discusstion for Article 5, however, because Article 5 deals with opponents that have more extreme stats. When an opponent 3-bets 10%, and then folds to 4-bet only 30%, or 24%, or 17%, he has extreme values for his preflop stats.

B-Money
02-06-2010, 07:42 PM
I'd love to help you out with the questions more but I am no poker god myself. If I was, I'd be playing poker and not working full-time.

I can answer this with confidence:
"If the exact calculations for our three ranges cannot be made right now, then I would like to at least know this: Is it correct to say that if opponent folds to 4bet 30%, we open up our 4bet range; if he folds to 4bet 24%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN MORE; and if he folds to 4bet 17%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN MORE THAN THAT?'

I would say this is backwards. If someone only folds to a 4-bet 14% of the time you want to make sure your hand is better than theirs if you are raising a 3-Bet. If someone folds to a 4-bet 80-90% of the time, you can 4 bet them knowing they are only calling if you are crushed.

This is just my opinion, it has nothing to do with the articles and the theories talked about in them.

-B

Ajax
02-07-2010, 08:51 AM
EDIT: Note that all of the ranges that I am referring to in this post are ranges for which we can get all-in profitably. I am not referring to bluff ranges (see post #19).


I would say this is backwards. If someone only folds to a 4-bet 14% of the time you want to make sure your hand is better than theirs if you are raising a 3-Bet. If someone folds to a 4-bet 80-90% of the time, you can 4 bet them knowing they are only calling if you are crushed.
-B

Thank you for your response. This is getting to the parts of Articles 4 and 5 about which I am confused. If we 4-bet someone who folds 80-90% of the time, and know that when he calls or raises he usually has us crushed, then it seems like the other player who folds to 4-bet 17% of the time will usually NOT have us crushed when HE calls or raises us. Therefore, it seems like we should be able to get all-in profitably with the widest range against the 17% player, and get all-in profitably with the narrowest range against the 80-90% player. In other words, it seems that:
+ if opponent folds to 4bet 80-90%, then we need to have a very closed range,
+ but if opponent folds to 4bet 17%, we can have a very opened range


But what you indicate above is that I had it backwards when I compared 30%, 24%, and 17%. Here is how I had it:
- if opponent folds to 4bet 30%, we open up our 4bet range
- if he folds to 4bet 24%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN MORE
- if he folds to 4bet 17%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN MORE THAN THAT

If that is backwards, then the correct way would be this:
+ if opponent folds to 4bet 30%, we open up our 4bet range
+ if he folds to 4bet 24%, we open up our 4bet range LESS
+ if he folds to 4bet 17%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN LESS THAN THAT

Now, take all five of the correct statements together (the five "+" statements are correct, and the three "-" statements are NOT correct, so we will look at the five "+" statements together):
+ if opponent folds to 4bet 80-90%, then we need to have a very closed range
+ if opponent folds to 4bet 30%, we open up our 4bet range
+ if he folds to 4bet 24%, we open up our 4bet range LESS
+ if he folds to 4bet 17%, we open up our 4bet range EVEN LESS THAN THAT
+ but if opponent folds to 4bet 17%, we can have a very opened range

Why do these concepts, related to Articles 4 and 5, seem to disagree? It is verry possible that I made an error somewhere above, and if so then please tell me where.

Hit_or_Miss
02-15-2010, 04:48 AM
+ if opponent folds to 4bet 80-90%, then we need to have a very closed range,


In that case I want to 4bet 2.5x 100%. Even if you fold 100% to a 5bet it would still be profitable.

Ajax
02-15-2010, 10:34 PM
In that case I want to 4bet 2.5x 100%. Even if you fold 100% to a 5bet it would still be profitable.

Yes, that would be profitable, but you are referring to the bluff range. My above post (#17) is about getting all-in profitably. It is not about the bluff range, but rather the 4-bet range with the intention of getting all-in profitably. (For more detail, see post #15.) Also, I will edit post #17 to clarify this.

To answer post #17, you need to take all of the last five statements together. Just saying that one of the five statements is incorrect does not clarify the concept. If any of the statements are incorrect, then the goal is to determine at what point higher in post #17 the logical error was made. Also, because the five statments seem to disagree, I think one or more of them must be incorrect, so if you think one of them is not right, that's great, but more information is still needed.

Ajax
02-16-2010, 01:06 AM
Hit or Miss,

It is great that you showed some interest in discussing this article.:)

I think this is a very good article. Since reading it, I have used its concepts many times to help me decide what to do while playing at the table. The odd thing though is that even though I use its concepts, there is something about this article, and article #4 too, that I do not understand. I made posts #15 and #17 above in an attempt to describe what it is that I am having difficulty with understanding. The last five "correct" statements in post #17 appear to disagree, but I do not know where I made any mistakes in arriving at those five statements. That is what I am trying to figure out. Where did I make the logical error?

I think there is another way that I could possibly figure out the part that I am having trouble with understanding. In Article 4, there is a series of grids that indicate the range for which Hero can 4-bet with the intention of getting all-in profitably (the grids are colored in red, orange, and blue). My impression is that all of the grids in Article 4 were developed using a systematic series of calculations.

The third row of grids in Article 4 is for when opponent 3-bets 10% of the time. The three columns in that row correspond to when opponent folds 58%, and 42%, and 30%. How would three more LOWER-FOLD grids look if we added them to the 10% row? Specifically, what would the 30% fold grid look like, and the 24% fold grid, and the 17% fold grid?

Furthermore, how would two HIGHER-FOLD grids look if we added them to the same 10% row? Specifically, what would a 70% fold grid look like, and what would an 85% fold grid look like?

The actual grids do not need to be created though; all that is necessary is the range information. If I could find this out, it would be very helpful.

EDIT: Actually, the more I think about it, I really do not need all of those grids calculated. Just two of them, the 24% fold grid, and the 85% fold grid, for the 10% row in Article 4, would probably be enough to help me figure it out (don't really need to see the grids either, just the range information that the grids would contain). Could the HEM people do that? No hurry though... I know you guys are busy. Either that, or some help with post #17 from anyone would be good too.