facing 3-bet out of position

N

nkat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 31, 2016
Total posts
155
Chips
0
hey everyone...

You're playing vs a decent reg who is capable of 3-bet light and being tricky. You have the same image to them.

They have the button. You open to 3bb and they 3-bet to 9bb. What's your go-to calling range in:

1. UTG
2. Hijack
3. Cut-off...?

:ad4:
 
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
hey everyone...

You're playing vs a decent reg who is capable of 3-bet light and being tricky. You have the same image to them.

They have the button. You open to 3bb and they 3-bet to 9bb. What's your go-to calling range in:

1. UTG
2. Hijack
3. Cut-off...?

:ad4:

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you're head's up and they have the button, what's the difference if you are in any of the 3 different positions you mentioned? No matter what, as you pointed out, you are out of position and that is all that matters.

UNLESS, you're trying to go all like Level 3 on us and suggesting that your initial open should be valued by the rest of the table at a different rate depending on what your starting position was and I suppose I could buy that.

EXCEPT you said you both open light and know this about one another. In a case like this, I am probably flatting him 9/10 times. In this VERY SPECIFIC scenario you suggested, you can actually be BETTER than the position and to quote Rounders "just outplay the guy."

If it were me, I'm doing crazy sh*t to f* with him like saying "call and check dark." MANY players both rec and pro think this is a total fish play. I contest that it actually TAKES AWAY the positional advantage. Because I would argue that the main advantage in acting last is getting to see what the others will do before you act. Nowadays you can get some donk betting from people who are either (a) clueless or (b) trying to mix it up. But it used to be that the standard was to check to the bettor and he would invariably C-bet. Supposedly from little clues in their standard checks or, more likely, in their reaction to the c-bet the one with position can start to "put it together." But usually it isn't until later streets that the likelihoods of ranges is more apparent.

Obviously online you can't "check in the dark" but you didn't say online or live and I assumed live. Online this ploy still works as it did for me in a MTT tonight. I 4x BB from UTG with 88 and got 3 callers. When it came 884 2 spades I couldn't check fast enough. UTG+1 got us started all in shove, another all in shove, a fold and back to me. I took a screenshot and posted it earlier. While it was currently the STONE COLD NUTS (which I sort of enjoy having with action in front) it was beatable to runner runner str8 flush or runner runner quads to above board pocket pair. But still, if you do anything but snap call in this position you need to seriously reconsider your game. Normally (because I'm a "polite" dick) I would type gg before calling. But they might have had outs, so I couldn't jinx myself. They were, in fact, drawing dead and I proved for the millionth time that a good player (especially when they get lucky) can take away a positional advantage.
 
N

nkat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 31, 2016
Total posts
155
Chips
0
it makes a big difference to a thinking reg. My utg range is tighter than my H-J range which is tighter than my co range. If they're 3b the same hands regardless of where i opened then I would no longer call them a "decent reg" (the question assumes they are).

It isn't "level 3" just Maths... also I said we are decent regs.. not overly loose.. just not nits.

Oh, and I should clarify that this is online 100bb poker. I should have said that in the original post, but can't edit now
 
V

vassiriki

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 2, 2016
Total posts
135
Chips
0
hey everyone...

You're playing vs a decent reg who is capable of 3-bet light and being tricky. You have the same image to them.

They have the button. You open to 3bb and they 3-bet to 9bb. What's your go-to calling range in:

1. UTG
2. Hijack
3. Cut-off...?

:ad4:

i think it depends on the hands i have. what are your strong hands at utg position? i'd call pairs at any position if not raise if i'd like to test him especially as you said you have a strong image at utg. 100 bbs are also not that much i believe so i'd go to call or raise at utg. if you had more, you can call anywhere if you think you can outplay him
 
Last edited:
N

Nutcracker69

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Total posts
692
Chips
0
it makes a big difference to a thinking reg. My utg range is tighter than my H-J range which is tighter than my co range. If they're 3b the same hands regardless of where i opened then I would no longer call them a "decent reg" (the question assumes they are).

It isn't "level 3" just Maths... also I said we are decent regs.. not overly loose.. just not nits.

Oh, and I should clarify that this is online 100bb poker. I should have said that in the original post, but can't edit now

Nope. Totally and wholeheartedly disagree.

I might assume that despite your "math" protestation you don't have a degree in Economics or Finance. If you have one in Math or Statistics, you should ask for a refund.

What you're describing is a fallacy of both Game Theory and everyday activity. You're confusing correlation with causation. You think that "because he is a thinking reg" that your starting position CAUSES his 3 bet on the button. It doesn't. Ever. It is merely a factor, that is, correlated to the fact that you opened from ANY of the 3 mentioned positions.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and an out to find you doing Level 3 Strategy here, which is well known and easily known by both of you. That is to say, well, he 3 bet me because he thinks I think X. But I know that he could 3 bet me because he thinks I think X and so his range is weaker than normally expected and so I can call or 4 bet knowing this. BUT, he knows that YOU KNOW all this and could be thinking it. SO, is he 3 betting you trying to build a pot with you misreading the situation? Or is he 3 betting you trying to get you to give up on the hand because of the he knows that I know that he knows that I know situation.

I will tell you two things definitively. Regardless of his cards, and regardless of the range he puts you on, he is NOT 3 betting you looking for a fold. So now you have to figure out, does he want me to call because he believes he has a strong advantage or does he want me to call to build a pot where he can REPRESENT a strong advantage and take it down on the turn or river once a decent pot has been built? Point #2 is that your position DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL. I promise I'm not trying to be mean, but I tell it like it is. Game Theory dating back to John Nash proves that when he acts his only concern about position is that he has it and you don't. (This is assuming you are head's up already. If you're not, you totally need to work on your layout skills because you made it seem that way)

So now go back to my original response to see how I would approach the situation. In case it isn't totally obvious, I would approach it exactly the same from every position.

The only caveat that would have been available here (which you did not use to your advantage) is IF you had limped from UTG, it folded around to him on the button, he makes it ANYWHERE in the range you find yourself in now 3-9bb, the blinds fold and it is back to you. Maybe a 9bb open from the button should be flatted for 100 different reasons of how to win from there. But MOST of that range gives you the option of re-popping HUGE and winning one of two ways: either TID right there, or TID on later streets due to expected range. If you guys haven't seen enough of it on tv yet, you can expect a ton of THIS EXACT PLAY of limp/raising UTG as a declaration of strength. Obviously, to balance your range, you need to do this with premium hands as well as others you might not want to. But that's how to make it profitable.
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
I might assume that despite your "math" protestation you don't have a degree in Economics or Finance. If you have one in Math or Statistics, you should ask for a refund.

What you're describing is a fallacy of both Game Theory and everyday activity. You're confusing correlation with causation. You think that "because he is a thinking reg" that your starting position CAUSES his 3 bet on the button. It doesn't. Ever. It is merely a factor, that is, correlated to the fact that you opened from ANY of the 3 mentioned positions.
WTF troll?

My BTN 3-bet range vs a decent reg UTG opener is not the same range as vs a decent reg CO opener. I'm assuming that decent regs will have a tighter 3-betting range vs my UTG open than vs my CO open as well.

If you fail to see this, then you can write "SUCKS AT POKER" over all your degrees. ;)

Besides, you should be playing exploitative poker at all times. Game theory optimal is only optimal vs other GTO players, i.e. almost never.

In case it isn't totally obvious, I would approach it exactly the same from every position.
Go write "SUCKS AT POKER" over all your degrees.
 
M

MinhANguyen

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Total posts
695
Chips
0
Does he even play poker or does he just speculate about it? And making random theories, using superflous vocabularly, and trying to sound smart about it lol. And lmfao at having a limping range 6-max UTG.
 
2

2tuzai

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Total posts
31
Awards
1
Chips
4
Does he even play poker or does he just speculate about it? And making random theories, using superflous vocabularly, and trying to sound smart about it lol. And lmfao at having a limping range 6-max UTG.

Was just going to reply something like this. Well said;)
 
N

nkat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 31, 2016
Total posts
155
Chips
0
WTF troll?

My BTN 3-bet range vs a decent reg UTG opener is not the same range as vs a decent reg CO opener. I'm assuming that decent regs will have a tighter 3-betting range vs my UTG open than vs my CO open as well.

If you fail to see this, then you can write "SUCKS AT POKER" over all your degrees. ;)

Besides, you should be playing exploitative poker at all times. Game theory optimal is only optimal vs other GTO players, i.e. almost never.

Go write "SUCKS AT POKER" over all your degrees.



Ding ding ding!

I do think that a GTO strategy should be known though, and then deviated from depending on the table.. what are your pf ranges here Tim.. in a vacuum?
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
My calling range vs a thinking reg's BTN 3-bet, in a vacuum is going to look something like this (but a lot of it is going to depend on the moment and situation):

UTG: JJ-99, 88-66*, 55-22*, AQs - better gets 4-bet, worse gets folded, *88-66 depends on whether or not I think it's profitable to setmine, *55-22 as well assuming I played them in the first place
HJ: TT-66, 55-22*, AQo-AJo, AJs-ATs - better gets 4-bet, worse gets folded, *55-22 depends on whether or not I think it's profitable to setmine
CO: 99-66, 55-22*, AJo-ATo, A9s-A6s, A5s-A2s*, KQo, KQs-KJs, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s - better gets 4-bet, worse gets folded, *A5s-A2s can be used as a 4-bet bluff, *55-22 depends on whether or not I think it's profitable to setmine
 
Last edited:
N

nkat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 31, 2016
Total posts
155
Chips
0
awesome.. thanks for the response! Those ranges looks solid. 78s and 89s look a little loose to me.. could be good though, I'm not sure.

About the set mining hands.. they need a super tight range for it to be good for a pure set mine right? Or to play really badly post flop
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
awesome.. thanks for the response! Those ranges looks solid. 78s and 89s look a little loose to me.. could be good though, I'm not sure.
They're well-hidden, easy to play postflop, and still have good equity against overcards. If you hit the flop with them, there's a *very* good chance he totally missed it, which you can use to your advantage.

About the set mining hands.. they need a super tight range for it to be good for a pure set mine right? Or to play really badly post flop
It depends on how big the chances are that they're going to pay me off when I hit, mostly. Getting paid off is often tricky OOP, but if they have a tendency to be a tad too aggro, I'm more inclined to setmine.
 
BlackJesus

BlackJesus

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Total posts
861
Chips
0
You have to have SUPERB cards to go along in that situation. The sad or pleasant truth is that nowadays people take excessive risks that cant be backed up by poker theory. Generally, it is better not to participate in many fights with many opponents. Just think of the pre-flop odds with godly AA against 2 oponents with pockets :jd4: :jd4: for example. Its just about 60%. Considering the rarity and mistification of AA, 60% aint THAT much.
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
You have to have SUPERB cards to go along in that situation.
You can't be too nitty, or you'll get 3-bet lighter and lighter since you're folding too much and are basically contributing free money.
 
B

Broon1234

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 11, 2016
Total posts
132
Chips
0
I'm likely calling or 4 betting anything in my raising range from UTG. From HJ and CO I'm likely folding more of my weak unsuited broadways and aces, calling the midrange hands and 4betting QQ+ AK+
 
vinnie

vinnie

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Total posts
1,208
Awards
1
US
Chips
50
Just think of the pre-flop odds with godly AA against 2 oponents with pockets :jd4: :jd4: for example. Its just about 60%. Considering the rarity and mistification of AA, 60% aint THAT much.

What are you smoking? AA vs JJ vs JJ is 95.43% vs 2.28% vs 2.28%

It's nothing like 60%.

AA vs QQ vs JJ is like 67% ... but that's still awesome and I would take that all day long. 2:1 to win getting 2:1 on my money, that's gold!
 
Top