Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dynamic Suited 3-Bet Bluff Candidates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dynamic Suited 3-Bet Bluff Candidates

    Many of our default ranges use AX and Suited Connectors as 3-Bet bluff combos, but in many quizzes, weekly poker hand videos, etc. I see JL indicating theses hands can go either way. Obviously if the opponent/position/live read indicated a strong villain we might not want to have much of a 3-bet bluff range if any. But in circumstances where we're leaning towards calling with these combos for other reasons, (late position, infrequent 3-betting in the game etc.,) does calling with these hands mean we just have a smaller 3-bet bluff range, or should we be bringing in suited gappers, non-wheel suited AX, more blocker hands into our 3-bet bluff range? In play I find myself flatting Suited AX and middle suited connectors often, as opponent's are definitely wider than they ought to be, 3-bets are too infrequent, I'm getting the requisite 20:1, and I trust myself to play well post flop (well for my stakes anyway.) I much prefer to 3-bet bluff with suited gappers and offsuit blockers that I know I'm not going to call, but maybe this is overloading my ranges post flop with junk and marginal holdings? Any thoughts?

  • #2
    We use 2 gappers as 3-bets from the BNT SB and BB only.

    Comment


    • Dilly
      Dilly commented
      Editing a comment
      I know the ranges indicate that. But JL definitely says that it's less about the exact combos and more about the frequency and types of hands we incorporate into the various ranges.

      So for example, CO v HJ 76s is a 3-bet, but, in certain situations we could definitely be flatting it if we're getting 20:1 implied and B, SB, and BB are all passive and weak. In that situation, if we're flatting 76s would we just accept fewer 3-bet bluffs in our range, or would we look to incorporate lower suited connectors and/or suited gappers in the place of what we're normally 3-bet bluffing with?

    • kkep
      kkep commented
      Editing a comment
      In that exact spot I would say we should use a linear 3-betting range and just fold 76s or maybe just call with that hand a small portion of the time.

      I'm always going to want and raise or fold that hand so we aren't playing with a capped range. Let's dispense of all the passive players marginal hands
      and get HU vs the HJ.

      When the passive players raise we have an easy fold unless they make a mistake by 4-betting to small.

      Or we protect our 3-bet range vs the passive players by only 3-betting with a value heavy range that allows to continue with a larger percentage of our hands when facing a 4-bet, usually in position..

      I don't know if that is right or not so I hope more people chime in.....

    • Dilly
      Dilly commented
      Editing a comment
      I think that's all sound thinking. Maybe I'll send a note to JL on email or Twitter see if we can get a video made on it or something lol
Working...
X