Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Post-Flop After 3-Betting From the SB - Perceived v Actual Range

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

  • Post-Flop After 3-Betting From the SB - Perceived v Actual Range

    Been thinking on the following lately:
    • Generally I'm 3-betting with a polarized range of premium hands and bluffs that are weaker suited connectors, weakers suited AX KX QX and junkier offsuit broadway holdings.
      • This gives us the range advantage on low card boards, high card boards, and generally disconnected boards.
        • Often times post-flop the play is c-bet our entire range except on particularly well connected boards.
          • Which boards are actually worst for us? Given the lack of awareness of many low stakes players, and the fact that some may just call 3-bets with the nuts, definitely some spots where high cards boards are not actually good for us, especially when we are bluffing on the wide side.
    • But, when we 3-bet linear, such as from the SB against LP raisers, how does this change?
      • Our range is less weighted towards nut hands and high card hands, with a much more even board coverage.
      • Our range is weaker, range advantage will usually run much closer.
      • We are going to be OOP post flop every time.
    • Also should consider not just how our actual range hits the board and runs against our opponent's range, but how our opponent views our range
      • Many micro-low opponents are going to feel our 3-betting range is very strong no matter what -- bluff more than we "ought" to?
      • Some opponents will pick up on the high frequency of 3-betting in this spot and may just assume you're bluffing usually -- bluff less than we "ought" to?
    I realize this isn't an articulate question so much as a brain dump of some of my ponderings, but would be interested if others have thoughts. I'm at the point where in 100BB+ cash I'm generally comfortable with the basic mechanics, just working on getting more granular and concrete in those respects, so this kind of K-Level game theory thinking interests me a lot as the next level of figuring out the game.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Dilly View Post
    Generally I'm 3-betting with a polarized range of premium hands and bluffs that are weaker suited connectors, weakers suited AX KX QX and junkier offsuit broadway holdings.
    To me this isn't actually a polarised range.

    The inclusion of the offsuit broadway holdings mean there is no real gap between the premium holdings and the low suited connectors and low suited aces and kings. Isn't this just a very wide linear range?

    I'm not saying that this isn't a good strategy for the micros. Your other comment "opponents are going to feel our 3-betting range is very strong no matter what" is probably true for most of our opponents and so using a wide 3betting range is a good way to take advantage of this flaw in their thinking.

    Against unknown players my strategy is generally to 3bet wider straight from the off than what is generally recommended for this very reason. I then can make it even more extreme against the players who seem to fold to every 3bet, or alternatively I can reign it in a bit against the better players (which has the added benefit of actually having a stronger 3betting range than they perceive -> get paid off more often).

    Comment


    • #3
      LondonImp I was thinking something like the below, obviously the exact holdings and frequency vary based on the exact situation:

      Comment


      • LondonImp
        LondonImp commented
        Editing a comment
        Why do you use A8s-A6s in your 3betting range?

      • Dilly
        Dilly commented
        Editing a comment
        LondonImp some of the B 3-betting ranges use the middle suited AX, but to be honest I just put this together showing what I meant by having junkier offsuit broadways as bluffs in a polarized range.
    Working...
    X