$4 NLHE Full Ring: 3B from SB vs Button Steal?

[Yoshimiii]

3 bet bigger pre-flop, I would make it 3-4x, flop is fine, turn bet more to get him off pocket pairs lower than Q/Q. I prefer a flat call pre-flop. Also 83% over 6 hands isn't enough.

 

[acky100]

6hand sample.

3betting ATs in a vacuum being a more +EV move does not make it the better option.
If we're against someone who we can profit 3betting any two cards (folds ~65% of the time) then we should come up with more hands to 3bet from the top of olur folding range not from the top of our flatting range.

I'm pretty sure 3betting ATs being more +EV in a vacuum, does make it the better option? I obviously don't mind calling, but i just think 3betting is more profitable overall. Also stop being a sample size nit, it's a damn good idea that hes opening a ton of buttons, that should be obvious. Even if he isn't which is unlikely, i still think 3betting is going to show better results though.

like i say, calling is fine, i just think calling from the small blind is pretty crappy in general and my results confirm this compared to 3betting. Take a look how you do calling with AT,KT,KJ type hands from the small blind facing a button raise perhaps, id be interested in how you are doing if your sample is good but for me 3betting is significantly better.

 

[acky100]

6hand sample.

3betting ATs in a vacuum being a more +EV move does not make it the better option.
If we're against someone who we can profit 3betting any two cards (folds ~65% of the time) then we should come up with more hands to 3bet from the top of olur folding range not from the top of our flatting range.

Also whist im with you generally on using hands from the top of our folding range (thats what i do mostly obviously) If a guy is folding to an absurd amount of 3bets then the exploitative adjustment would be to 3bet him with all hands that can be profitably called too. Obviously that would make us exploitable if he was competent but if 3betting ATs > EV than calling it here, im pretty happy to 3bet it.

 

[Deco]

I'm pretty sure 3betting ATs being more +EV in a vacuum, does make it the better option?

I recall a non poker example of this I did during my exams:

We can combine letters and number to make money there is only one of letter/number:
{A,B} {1,2}

{A,1} = £5
{A,2} = £3
{B,1} = £3
{B,2} = -£0

For A in a vacuum {A,1} is the best choice for £5
Looking at our entire range {A,2} is the best choice as:
{A,1} + {B,2} = £5
{A,2} + {B,1} = £6

If a guy is folding to an absurd amount of 3bets then the exploitative adjustment would be to 3bet him with all hands that can be profitably called too.

Why when there are plenty of hands we lose money on folding we could 3bet instead and make profitable? Including a hand we already make money on would only be necessary if we we're 3betting so many hands we exhausted our folding range.

 

[acky100]

yeah, this is if we are concerned with any sort of balance, im 3betting ATs for value here, not as a bluff, and im saying i think 3betting ATs > EV than calling it. That's all im trying to suggest, i fully understand how polarised ranges work.

Also when i spoke of say a guy folding to 80% of 3bets, the most exploitative adjustment you could make would be 3betting everything, im not just making this up, if a guy was playing this strat and wasn't going to adjust, you would win more with ATs by 3betting than flatting.

 

[Deco]

im 3betting ATs for value here

I was replying to this where I felt it was a safe assumption you were 3betting as a bluff.

If a guy is folding to an absurd amount of 3bets then the exploitative adjustment would be to 3bet him with all hands that can be profitably called too.

Seeing as ATs is the very top of my flatting range I haven't much issue with 3betting it for value. My point about betting against a range rather than a vacuum isn't even about balance it's about overall profitability. Why 3bet a hand that already makes us money when there are hands we currently lose money with we can use instead.

As for 3betting 100% of hands sure if you feel the need to do that and expect no adjustment then 3betting ATs for a bluff would be fine, I've yet to encounter a situation where I personally have felt comfortable doing this though so I think it's very much theoretical. Even against 100% SB openers I don't 3bet 100% of hands.

 

[acky100]

-

I was replying to this where I felt it was a safe assumption you were 3betting as a bluff. no way, ATs is a nice hand


Seeing as ATs is the very top of my flatting range I haven't much issue with 3betting it for value. My point about betting against a range rather than a vacuum isn't even about balance it's about overall profitability. Why 3bet a hand that already makes us money when there are hands we currently lose money with we can use instead. sure

-

 

[AugustWest]

Thanks for all the replies!
1] BTN open @ 4NL is usually pretty wide, so I 3B.
2] When he called, I should have realized his range really polarized, JJ+/AK I think?
3] So barreling on the paired board without much equity was bad.
4] 24 hands worth of stats is not enough data!

Is this thought process incorrect?

 

[Yoshimiii]

Thanks for all the replies!
1] BTN open @ 4NL is usually pretty wide, so I 3B.
2] When he called, I should have realized his range really polarized, JJ+/AK I think?
3] So barreling on the paired board without much equity was bad.
4] 24 hands worth of stats is not enough data!

Is this thought process incorrect?

1- If he calls with worse then yes 3bet is fine,but you might be playing a potentially dominated Ace oop.
2- Your only assuming this.
3-Once he calls flop a pocket pair is very likely, barreling turn big might get him off them so you don't have to barrel river, however betting half pot folds nothing much.
4-correct