3bet and cold call ranges

DaReKa

DaReKa

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Total posts
264
Chips
0
I'm looking to refine this bit of my game, and I'm not really sure how to build a good range, particularly for cold calling. Against a tag, what should my CC range be? When I've tried to figure it out on my own I come up with a really miniscule range. 22-JJ, and AQ,AJs(+suited connectors in CO or BTN). 3betting QQ+,AK,AQs. I also 3bet bluff rarely. Most people at my limit call 3bets way too much so I'm mostly doing it for value. Sometimes I 3bet very light for value against very loose-weak opponents. But what I'm looking to do here is figure out a strategy for better opponents.

Sooo...

1st: I need help figuring out what to cold call with.
2nd: I need help adding hands to my 3bet range as bluffs.
 
Last edited:
DaReKa

DaReKa

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Total posts
264
Chips
0
Ok, I reviewed two articles on 3 betting and Cold calling. The polarized 3 betting range I've come up with is QQ+, AK, ATs-A7s, AJo-A9o, KJs-K8s. It has me 3betting at 7.7% (which leak buster tells me is right on the money).

Three questions though. 1. Is this a good range?
2. Would it be a good idea to widen range and not 3bet the range 100% of the time to add deception? If so, what kind of hands should I add?
3. I'm going to stick to this exact range to start out, but then planning on adjusting based on position (Blinds vs BTN/CO, BTN vs CO, Any position vs UTG). How should I typically be adjusting to each of these situations?

For my cold call range, I've decided "tight is right" and come up with JJ-22, AQ, AJs, KQ, QJs-54s (suited connectors), with the lower part of the range only in position (BTN or CO with nitty BTN.)

One question: Is this range any good?

Feed back appreciated!!
 
John A

John A

Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Total posts
6,492
Awards
3
Chips
37
Close... I mean, I'd move some of the 3-betting range around a bit and include some Qxs hands as well. Remove AJo, etc... Did you read my book and the section on 3-betting? It should answer a lot of this for you really. If not, then I need to scrap that chapter. :)
 
H

Henreiman

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Total posts
560
Chips
0
3 betting call v 4 bet ranges should be tailored to two main considerations: how often is my opponent 3 betting, and what positions are we in? Position is probably more important - both where opponent is and where you are, as well as who has position on the flop. It can be so variable depending on experience with the opponent that making 'set' ranges is tough. Against a complete unknown, I'm generally 4 betting AQs/JJ+ OOP and folding worse. In position it's more of a stack size consideration - am I trying to get it in now, or do I want to cold call and see a flop (under the assumption that he will be c-betting big).
 
DaReKa

DaReKa

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Total posts
264
Chips
0
Close... I mean, I'd move some of the 3-betting range around a bit and include some Qxs hands as well. Remove AJo, etc... Did you read my book and the section on 3-betting? It should answer a lot of this for you really. If not, then I need to scrap that chapter. :)

Spent the past several hours going over the 3-betting section and playing with an equity calculator. It gets pretty advanced for my immediate purposes, as I'm just starting to incorporate 3-betting effectively and want to get a better grasp on the fundamentals before trying to tackle the Quasi-range. It will also require a few re-reads for me to totally "get it" I think.

Here is a beginner's perspective on the chapter:
  • The first thing that confused me was AQo vs the 30% cutoff range. I could not figure out in the APD Equity Calc how AQo was an under dog. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.
  • The part where it explained how equity of AQo increased vs a calling range, and the equity of JJ decreased vs a calling range added another layer of thought to my preflop strategy. I'm still not confident that I understand enough to balance the importance of higher equity vs. shutting out hands with high implied odds, and giving a more favorable stack to pot ratio for postflop play. (I need a better understanding of pot/stack ratio in general, perhaps a segment with a brief explanation of that dynamic would be a good add for the book)
  • The bluff range in the polarized 3bet comes out to be 21.4% when I put it in. Does that mean that I should be 3bet bluffing that whole range, but only doing it about 1 in every 5 times that I have one? (to come out to bluffing about 4% of the time)
  • Reading about the quasi-range strategy got me excited thinking about how much room I have to improve my game and my understanding of poker. However I know that my understanding of equity and poker in general is too shallow to try to incorporate it just yet - one step at a time :)
  • Some of the math was wrong in the examples. The first problem I noticed with it was that the "/" marks led me to look at the numbers incorrectly (trying to figure out how to divide all that stuff and why it would make sense). I think commas separating F, B, and C would be more easily understood.
  • The actual math that was wrong was the following: C = (-9.5(.60) +(10(.40) instead of C = (9.5(.60) +(10(.40). And the equation should read F - B + C = EV, instead of F + B + C = EV.

Here's a question specific to me:
Firstly, in the standard polarized 3betting section, you recommend 3betting JJ+, AQ+ for value (4.2%) and another 4% of bluffs for a total of 8%. since I am only 3betting QQ+, AK, AQs for value (2.9%), should I only add 3% bluffs to keep my bluff and value range 50/50.

Lastly, I haven't completed the whole book yet, but so far I really think it's the most complete and modern guide to going from total beginner to winning player. It's better than any of the books I've read by big name professionals. Thank you for the free guide.

Anyway, I'm going to have to dedicate a lot of time to the 3betting section alone. The book as a whole probably has enough content to fill multiple months worth of study.
 
John A

John A

Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Total posts
6,492
Awards
3
Chips
37
Cool.... good thank you for the feedback. Yeah, the AQo example, I was trying to make a simple point, but messed up the range. Really you're still slightly ahead. But at least you got some work with the calculator in. :)

With the last equation, I see where I wrote it wrong. I did the math correctly, and didn't add the - in the right spot though. That's helpful and something editors missed too. Thanks. I already fixed it all now, and put up a new version.

As far as your bluff range question - 21.4%, these are recommended hands to do it with. Doesn't mean you're doing it all of the time. It's breaking down profitable hands, and the frequency and spots you do it is up to you. Hopefully, you're following the guidelines that are outlined to start, so that you'll know how to find the highest EV situations. Then it's up to you, what kind of 3-bet strategy are you going to employ at that table, and for your overall game. If you're doing it correctly, a natural balance will occur and it will even out somewhere between 7.5-10%.

With your specific question. It depends on what stakes you're playing. You probably don't need to have an exact 50/50, but it's a good place to start. If you're not 3-bet bluffing very often, then getting your percentage up to 6-7% will take some forced effort and you can judge how your opponents are reacting. Most opponents aren't going to be able to make out if you have a slightly imbalanced range. :)

We're definitely going to go over all of this when we start the study group as well.
 
DaReKa

DaReKa

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Total posts
264
Chips
0
I got the updated version and realized I didn't understand the EV equation like I thought I did the first time I read through it.

F = (4.5(.20), B = (8(.20), C = (9.5(.60) - (10(.40)
F - B + C = EV
F = How often your opponent folds to your 3-bet. We're saying conservatively 20%. A good
number is between 20–30% depending on your opponent.

B = How often your opponent is 4-betting and you'll have to fold. 15–25% is a fair number
and against better players who will start 4-betting as their adjustment this will get to ~30%.

C = How often a slightly over half pot sized continuation bet will be called. 60% is a rough
fair number, but against some opponents this will be lower or slightly higher.
F makes sense - you win 4.5 BB 20% of the time. B makes sense - you lose the 8 BB 3bet 20% of the time that you're raised. So the pot = 17.5BB. Which means if you get a fold with your cbet, you will have won 9.5 BB - the 8BB 3bet + the 1.5 Blinds. So 60% should be the amount opponent folds instead of calls.

But here's where I'm really confused. You subtract 10BB 40% of the time that they call(if I am right about the first part.) I can understand that, but don't you have to include the money invested in the 3bet since F and B are included? It seems like BB lost should be 18, and on top of that C as a whole should be multiplied by 0.6 because the 3bet is only being called 60% of the time preflop.
 
John A

John A

Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Total posts
6,492
Awards
3
Chips
37
Thanks for going over it. This is what I was asking for on double checking. I'm decent at math, but at 39, I haven't used that much in awhile. :) I think I should simplify it so it will look like this:
F = (4.5(.20), B = (8(.20), C = (-10(.40) + (9.5(.60)
This way you know where the loss is, instead of doing it the other way. Now true, 3-bet is getting called 80% of the time, so 20% of the time you aren't getting to C. It's a little more complex because it's not just a matter of x$ already being counted. I think you're right though and that we'd need to consider a % of the time that the result of C isn't being fractioned in. I don't think it's going to change the result very much though or the point. I'll have to give it some more thought though, thanks.
 
Aleksei

Aleksei

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Total posts
1,527
Chips
0
Mind, your range for 3betting vs early open should be much tighter than your range for restealing. I'm not entirely sure how 3bet ranges are structured in 6max, but I would reason that you should have a more merged range IP and 3bet much smaller (since your main objective is to put more money in ahead and prevent squeezes or overcalls), and 3bet a more polarized range OOP much bigger as you wanna end the hand right then and there.
 
R

RoyWeldon

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Total posts
17
Chips
0
My range is AX+.but I like play flop too.
 
W

Weissr

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 26, 2012
Total posts
833
Chips
0
The actual math that was wrong was the following: C = (-9.5(.60) +(10(.40) instead of C = (9.5(.60) +(10(.40). And the equation should read F - B + C = EV, instead of F + B + C = EV.

Is it just me, or is that still way too many open brackets? Unless it's some different kind of notation, every open bracket need a closed bracket friend. In this case simply: C = -9.5(.60) + 10(.40) would suffice, or you could also do: C = (-9.5)(.60) +(10)(.40) or C = (-9.5(.60)) + (10(.40)) but it's a bit overkill.
 
R

rhombus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Total posts
2,601
Chips
0
Is it just me, or is that still way too many open brackets? Unless it's some different kind of notation, every open bracket need a closed bracket friend. In this case simply: C = -9.5(.60) + 10(.40) would suffice, or you could also do: C = (-9.5)(.60) +(10)(.40) or C = (-9.5(.60)) + (10(.40)) but it's a bit overkill.
C = (-9.5)(.60) +(10)(.40) is C=-9.5*(0.6)+10*(0.4)
 
W

Weissr

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 26, 2012
Total posts
833
Chips
0
C = (-9.5)(.60) +(10)(.40) is C=-9.5*(0.6)+10*(0.4)

Yes, I think most people understand that is multiplication. My comment was regarding the use of too many / not enough brackets which makes the math look odd.

I do like the thread tho!
 
Top