Should 3bets Actually Be Called 4bets??

[SharkFinn]

Ok very important topic coming up

I was thinking about the origin of the word '3bet' and I think there's a breakdown in the logic of the origin story. Supposedly it's called a 3bet because the blinds are the first bet, and an open raise is the second bet, and a raise over the open raise is the third bet, hence '3bet'. And only raises are counted as bets here, not calls.

Ok fine, but... the blinds are different sizes, so aren't they two bets, not one? I know in practice the blinds are posted at the same time but strictly I think the running order is small blind posted (first bet), big blind posted (second bet), open raise (third bet) etc.

What do you think - did whoever it was that first coined the phrase get their logic wrong??

 

[SecksyGambler]

I think that you're thinking too much.
Also, yes, I think your logic makes sense and it probably should be considered a four bet. However, i don't think that the terminology needs to be, nor should be changed; it's too widely comprehended that three bets are the 'second bet' or re-raise. therefore, it wouldn't be practical to change the definition of a three-bet.

 

[TheBackpack]

It should be 2-bet not 3-bet maybe lol

 

[Collin Moshman]

This is an interesting idea -- I definitely see the logic here

I think though that you could make the argument that the small blind doesn't count because it's not a legal bet size on any betting round (since the minimum bet is the big blind). Although thinking more about this, a blind is a forced bet by definition ... so I have to agree with what you're saying!

 

[Phoenix Wright]

Ok very important topic coming up

I was thinking about the origin of the word '3bet' and I think there's a breakdown in the logic of the origin story. Supposedly it's called a 3bet because the blinds are the first bet, and an open raise is the second bet, and a raise over the open raise is the third bet, hence '3bet'. And only raises are counted as bets here, not calls.

Ok fine, but... the blinds are different sizes, so aren't they two bets, not one? I know in practice the blinds are posted at the same time but strictly I think the running order is small blind posted (first bet), big blind posted (second bet), open raise (third bet) etc.

What do you think - did whoever it was that first coined the phrase get their logic wrong??

Haha. I thought the same reasoning when learning the terminology too. The element that helps me remember it is a "3-bet" (and not a "4-bet") is that technically the blinds and antes go in the center (before the cards are dealt) at the same time, so it is a single step/a single bet.

This is an interesting idea -- I definitely see the logic here

I think though that you could make the argument that the small blind doesn't count because it's not a legal bet size on any betting round (since the minimum bet is the big blind). Although thinking more about this, a blind is a forced bet by definition ... so I have to agree with what you're saying!

Good thinking with the bet size not reaching the minimum. So I guess we just don't count it towards the count of "3" bets (or 4).

 

[Zirkzee]

I think the small blind does not count towards the bet because everyone who wants to call has to pay the big blind. That's why the big blind is the first bet. The small blind is not counted.