Originally Posted by kleitches
I guess the point Vanq is making is that the higher the stakes, the tighter the UTG range tends to be. So I can see why 3-betting could be a bad idea. I'm just a bit confused between when we should be 3-betting because we want worse hands to call (to extract value when we're ahead obv) and when we shouldn't be 3-betting because we're afraid we'll fold out worse.
Thoughts on this Vanq? Also, would 3-betting the UTG's open and then folding to a 4-bet/shove really be that bad? I realize that 3-betting QQ and folding to a reraise would be sort of shitty, but do we can take down the pot enough to justify making that play? There's also the possibility that he indeed does call with worse.
basically his range is nitty enough that playing QQ for set value (and rare set-over-set value vs. his TT/JJ hands) is really the logical play
3-betting QQ for value is good in position vs. guys who open wide enough, and don't fold to many 3-bets (something like a 14/11 with a 52% fold to 3b comes to mind)
in regards to 3-betting QQ and playing vs. 4-bets, i really only wanna be 3-betting QQ if:
-i'm out of position (because calling sucks, and folding obv. sucks)
-the guy will call a reasonable amount of my 3-bets, and his opening range is wide enough
-he is in a spot where he can 4-bet as bad as JJ or AKo and stack off with those hands, or he can 4-bet bluff
-he 4-bets KK+ (so i know that when he calls my 3bet, i'm ahead)
or something like that