3betting SCs (moved from isoing limpers thread)

[BelgoSuisse]

So you don't believe in 3betting with a polarized range. So your value and bluffing ranges are merged which implies 3betting AQ/ AJ?????

No.

To simplify things let's only consider Ax hands and assume that Ax is better than Ay if x>y for simplicity. (it's not, since A2-A5 can make straights while A6-A9 can't)

If hypothetically I can 3bet AK+ for value, flat call AT+ with a profit, but not A2-A9, then my 3bet range will be something like {AK+,A9}, call with AT-AQ and fold {A2-A8}.

{AK+,A9} is a polarized range. {AK+,A2} would also be a polarized range but out of the hands I would fold, I'd rather 3bet bluff with the better hands from my folding range than with the worse ones.

 

[fx20736]

No.

To simplify things let's only consider Ax hands and assume that Ax is better than Ay if x>y for simplicity. (it's not, since A2-A5 can make straights while A6-A9 can't)

If hypothetically I can 3bet AK+ for value, flat call AT+ with a profit, but not A2-A9, then my 3bet range will be something like {AK+,A9}, call with AT-AQ and fold {A2-A8}.

{AK+,A9} is a polarized range. {AK+,A2} would also be a polarized range but out of the hands I would fold, I'd rather 3bet bluff with the better hands from my folding range than with the worse ones.

A3s-A5s have a higher expected value than A6s and about the same EV as A7s so it makes sense to fold A7s/A6s and 3bet the A3s-A5s.

I guess what this really is morphing into in my mind at least, is what types of hands can you profitably call a raise with (when you have position on your opponent)? Against most villains we're probably talking about 99/TT, possibly JJ and AQ/AJ/AT/KQ/KJ possibly QJ.

What is your goal when you call with these hands? If you call with AJ and the flop comes down A94 and villain c-bets then how ddo you play that hand?

Also when you flat and a player with position behind you flats how are you going to play the hand OOP?

 

[BelgoSuisse]

I guess what this really is morphing into in my mind at least, is what types of hands can you profitably call a raise with (when you have position on your opponent)?

When villain has a tight range and stacks are deep enough, you call to crack, i.e. make a better hand and stack him. Which hands enter this description exactly depends on villain/stack depth. Small pocket pairs for set value are almost always part of this range, but other hands can get there when stacks get deeper.

When villain has a loose range and stacks are deep enough, you call to steal, i.e. to float/raise/... and ultimately make him fold. Typically that means you want hands that flop good equity on many flops as that makes semi bluffs more profitable. Typically that means suited and/or connected and/or high cards.

And in both cases, or if stacks are small, there are hands that are ahead of villains range, but not of his 3bet calling range, and therefore it's ok to call with those to keep the worst part of his range in play. That's where AQ comes if villain opens A8+ but folds A8-AJ to a 3bet.

 

[fx20736]

When villain has a tight range and stacks are deep enough, you call to crack, i.e. make a better hand and stack him. Which hands enter this description exactly depends on villain/stack depth. Small pocket pairs for set value are almost always part of this range, but other hands can get there when stacks get deeper.

When villain has a loose range and stacks are deep enough, you call to steal, i.e. to float/raise/... and ultimately make him fold. Typically that means you want hands that flop good equity on many flops as that makes semi bluffs more profitable. Typically that means suited and/or connected and/or high cards.

And in both cases, or if stacks are small, there are hands that are ahead of villains range, but not of his 3bet calling range, and therefore it's ok to call with those to keep the worst part of his range in play. That's where AQ comes if villain opens A8+ but folds A8-AJ to a 3bet.

So when a Nit open raises from UTG is there any hand you are going to call with? When I play as a nit my opening range from EP is TT+ AQs AKo. That is 3.76% Ax hands make up just over half of that range.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

So when a Nit open raises from UTG is there any hand you are going to call with?

Depends on stack sizes. If he's short, probably none. If he's deep enough, I'll set mine. If he's REALLY deep and won't fold an overpair, i'll play any two cards and pray for 2 pairs / trips

 

[fx20736]

Depends on stack sizes. If he's short, probably none. If he's deep enough, I'll set mine. If he's REALLY deep and won't fold an overpair, i'll play any two cards and pray for 2 pairs / trips

Say 100bb. I'm thinking there aren't many nits who would play real deep stacked poker.

 

[feitr]

For a start hands in HE don't have an innate set value. You think I can play 76s as profitably as durrr? or even Belgo or WV? I can't and I've noticed it's a mistake you keep making in saying that such a hand isn't profitable when it might just not be profitable for you.

At the same time, for a specific person hands are more profitable than others. They have more equity and as Stu said, the margins of profitability as one moves up in stakes become so thin that all of this matters a lot.

Yea, I talked about 87s as a profitable hand to flat because it is a hand you could flat IP and show a profit with in midstakes 6max games where players are more capable of folding and stacks are often fairly deep (87s obviously becomes a less profitable flat IP the shallower you are) - if you can't flat with it profitably then it becomes a very good hand to 3B light.

But the entire idea of 3Bing a polarized range implies that villains can pay attention to your 3B range and it is to add balance to an otherwise far too strong 3B range that is going to get far too many folds. That doesn't mean you should 3B every suited 1-3 gapper - it means that your range should be distributed in such a way that it exploits the way villain perceives your range. If he thinks your range is extremely strong then you should be 3Bing more of the bottom end of your range, if he thinks it contains alot of semi bluff hands then you should be 3Bing light less. If you are playing <nl50 you probably shouldn't be 3Bing light at all as villains are going to be following a set strategy which will probably involve calling alot of 3Bs OOP when they shouldn't. 3Bing a hand like 96s IP works alot better when villain is going to 4B or fold a high % of the time, in which case you really don't mind folding a hand that has fairly poor equity/playability but at least for the times that you are called you have a hand that plays postflop the best of your non-profitable flatting hands.

 

[HomeBrewer]

Sorry for the off topic question, but when you guys use the word blocker what are you referring to exactly?

I believe it was said somewhere that Ax had a blocker against AA. Sorry for the newb question...just had to ask.

 

[baudib1]

There are 6 ways to make AA but when you hold Ax there are only 3 ways.

This is pretty important to understand because of how certain hands play against certain ranges, especially tight ranges.

In a vacuum KQs might be a more playable hand and fares better against certain ranges, if someone's 3-betting range or their 3-bet calling range is like QQ+/AK you'd much rather have A5 than KQ.

Because A5 is running into AA/AK a lot less and fares better against KK/QQ, A5 has a ton more equity vs. that range than KQ and is not too much worse than, say, JJ.

when you expand their ranges, this changes. If villain's range is now TT-AA, AJ-AK, KQ fares better than A5, JJ gains a ton of equity and is a favorite over that range.

 

[LuckyChippy]

^^ all good stuff.

Another way of explaining it is Combinatorics. Essentially a given hand has a certain number of combinations.

AKs is AcKc/AsKs/AdKd/AhKh. 4 combinations. If we hold Ah5h, then our opponent can now only hold 3 combinations, meaning we have a blocker to the number of combos of AKs he has (also AKo with the Ah but for simplicity we'll ignore it). Obviously this means he is less likely to have AKs and will change his range and our equity.

 

[baudib1]

actually JJ is flipping with TT-AA, AJ+

Hand Equity Wins Ties
kqs 34.34% 148,837,068 3,417,568
TT-AA, AK, AQ, AJ 65.66% 286,095,188 3,417,568

JJ 49.53% 323,953,752 13,644,060
TT-AA, AK, AQ, AJ 50.47% 330,200,748 13,644,060

A5s 31.50% 128,218,404 15,376,800
TT-AA, AK, AQ, AJ 68.50% 287,905,404 15,376,800

A5s 30.15% 53,611,440 4,298,580
QQ-AA, AK 69.85% 127,018,812 4,298,580

KQs 25.08% 40,424,268 1,603,560
QQ-AA, AK 74.92% 122,353,356 1,603,560

JJ 36.19% 125,683,776 1,463,736
QQ-AA, AK 63.81% 222,162,504 1,463,736

edit: A5 doesn't have a "ton" more equity vs. QQ+/AK than KQ, but is imminently more playable. Because when you make top pair against QQ+/AK you're going to be good a lot more often than when you make top pair against QQ+/AK with KQ.

A5 on Axx board is a favorite over the range of QQ+/AK...remember, having A5 reduces the combos of AA/AK out against us. KQ is still crushed by that range even on Kxx boards.

Interestingly, KQ is a lot better against that range on Q-high boards, because of the combos of AK that we're now beating.

 

[feitr]

There are 6 ways to make AA but when you hold Ax there are only 3 ways.

This is pretty important to understand because of how certain hands play against certain ranges, especially tight ranges.

In a vacuum KQs might be a more playable hand and fares better against certain ranges, if someone's 3-betting range or their 3-bet calling range is like QQ+/AK you'd much rather have A5 than KQ.

Because A5 is running into AA/AK a lot less and fares better against KK/QQ, A5 has a ton more equity vs. that range than KQ and is not too much worse than, say, JJ.

when you expand their ranges, this changes. If villain's range is now TT-AA, AJ-AK, KQ fares better than A5, JJ gains a ton of equity and is a favorite over that range.

jj does alot better vs a tight range than a5 as the ak combos are basically equal to the qq+ combos (probably ~10% better), but pretty much spot on in terms of an equity analysis of blocker effect, although JJ is 50/50 with a TT+, AJ+ range. EDIT: This is pretty irrelevant as I see you posted corrections anyways.

@ the person who was asking about it: However, blockers tend to have more relevance in reducing the value combos that they can have, rather than influencing your equity. So CO opens and btn 3Bs and you have QK in the bb - if CO is fairly loose and btn 3Bs a fair bit you now have a hand that blocks combos of qq, kk, ak and aq (little less relevant) but isn't a good enough hand to cold call a 3B from the blinds. And it blocks them quite significantly - reduces the kk, qq combos in half and reduces the ak, aq combos by 25%. So if villain is going to get in qq+, AK you now have only 24 combos of value hands as compared to 34 when unblocked. Doesn't mean that you should cold 4B here if the situation is terrible for it (super nits) - but if it is a spot where you want to be cold 4B bluffing some of the time you want to choose times where you have relevant blockers such as KQ or even AQ assuming you can't profitably call it. So when people talk about 3Bing or 4Bing ax it is because they are reducing the combos of ak, aq, aj and aa. It's even more relevant and interesting in PLO.

In PLO for instance you can get in situations where if somebody is repping top 2+ and you have top pair, they have top 2 about 3/4th as often as compared to the situation where you don't have a blocker to top pair and they have top set about 1/3rd as often as when you don't block it. And villain si more than two times more likely to have qk on jt9 when you dont hold a blocker in your hand as compared to the situation where there are three blockers (2 on board, one in your hand) such as on a board of kq2.

 

[HomeBrewer]

Thanks everyone. I do understand the whole combination discussion, I have just never heard the expression 'blocker' before. Makes perfect sense.

Does that mean I used up my stupid question for the week?

 

[LuckyChippy]

Thanks everyone. I do understand the whole combination discussion, I have just never heard the expression 'blocker' before. Makes perfect sense.

Does that mean I used up my stupid question for the week?

You have one more, be very careful.

But seriously it's not a stupid question at all.

 

[HomeBrewer]

You have one more, be very careful.

But seriously it's not a stupid question at all.

lol. Fair enough. I will choose wisely for the next one. :cheers: