Next we want to see what actually happened. We are privileged in this situation to be able to close action. So if there are a few callers to us, or even just one, we can just default set mine here. At that point we are getting 20x as a minimum, and thus a call is very easy. If there is any sort of 3-bet we are just folding as we would be risking too much for a low profitability set mine. However, if everyone folds to us, we have a decision to make. Here we should set mine if our opponent isolates with a very strong range and we think there are implied odds. If he isolates wide, then folding as a default would be the best play in this example. Now our plan can change a little bit as our pair gets higher and higher. Say we had 88 in this spot against a wide isolator with no callers: we might consider calling and peeling some flops against the “CB-and-quit” player type. If we know he will double barrel a ton in this spot, then folding preflop is better unless we plan on calling multiple barrels and getting involved in a very large pot OOP with a mediocre pair.
The Attacking Of An Isolator
As the games get more and more aggressive, isolating becomes more prevalent. By that same token, open-limping also happens less often, but where there are fish and passive nits, there will also be open-limping. We want to be on the lookout for habitual isolators as they can provide a really nice profit for us if we attack them well.
Take a common situation where there is an open-limp in MP, the CO isolates to 5x, and it is our action on the button with everyone having full stacks. Of course if we have our strongest hands we would want to 3-bet here for value (KK and AA, as a flat call would encourage a multi way pot with an awkward SPR, and a 3-bet should provide direct value for us), but what if we had K8s or A4o? These can be great 3-bet spots if a few conditions are satisfied:
The open-limper isn't a fish who might call more often
The isolator has a wider range that will fold at least 75% of the time (this number has a lot of buffer built into it)
We have no calling stations behind us that might call and ruin our play
The first and third conditions are very easy to see just by checking our HUD, but the second one can be hard to spot. But there are things that we can check to make our life easier though. First, who is he isolating? If he is isolating a fish, chances are that his range is stronger and thus we would get less folds from him. Next, does he tend to isolate aggressively? We can check his “Steal Limped Pot” stat from LP for that. If it is high, along with him showing some positional awareness, then his range is probably wider if he is isolating a nit or tight/passive player. We also want to check his “Foldv3B” stat to ensure he actually folds when facing this 3-bet. We don't really want to have to play postflop out as this play is designed to pick the post up now as opposed to later.
It should be noted that this is not a play we “have” to make. If absolutely perfect conditions arise then we can take them, but there is no need to force a play that has this kind of exposure. While we should always be on the lookout for profitable edges, we shouldn't constantly take edges that might be breakeven at best . In this play we are risking 18bb for an 8.5bb win, which is a considerable win compared to our normal win with trash hands. But again, only take it if you are comfortable with the situation and the stars are properly aligned.
5. 3-Betting
3-betting is one of the most popular topics of strategic discussion. It can seem incredibly complicated due to the information necessary to do it correctly. This chapter will deal with value 3-betting, bluff 3-betting, and “the other” 3-betting. It will cover the necessary variables to consider, the sizing, and the hand ranges that work best. So let's start the fun.
The Value 3-Bet
When we have a strong hand and are facing a raise, we usually want to 3-bet in order to get involved in a bigger pot. However, just like any action we make in poker, we need to look at the necessary variables to ensure our play is going to be optimal. The big thing we need to remember whenever we bet or raise is that we are doing so for one of two reasons: to get worse hands to continue or to get better hands to fold. If we ever 3-bet and no worse hands give us action and no better hands fold, then the 3-bet probably isn't the best play.
For instance, say a 12/9 TAG open raises to 3x from EP with $25 at 25NL. It folds to us on the button with QQ, $25, and nits in the blinds. QQ is a very strong hand preflop and we consider a 3-bet. We take a second peek at his HUD and see he has an EPPFR of 6%, which looks like 44+/AK. Now we ask ourselves the basic question: if we raise, what continues and/or folds?
Hands that continue: TT+ and sometimes AK
Hands that fold: 44-99 and sometimes AK
We do get some value from worse hands, sometimes TT/JJ/AK, but pretty much everything we beat folds. Of course, he could call us a bit more liberally preflop on occasion, but even still, he is just doing so to set mine and won't give us any good action past that. So a 3-bet here doesn't really get us much value, and thus we might call here. Even though QQ is the third strongest hand preflop, there isn't much value because not enough worse hands continue, and we never get folds from better hands.
However, hand strength is relative. Against such a tight continuance range, a 3-bet isn't very ideal with QQ there. Say we change the situation and say MP1 open raises to 3x with $25 at 25NL and it folds to us in the CO with QQ, $25, and tight players behind us. MP1 is a 35/13 over 100 hands with a Foldv3B of 40% and an MPPFR of 15%. Now, with a smaller sample size like 100 hands we cannot really use positional PFR as it doesn't have enough samples to be more exact. But we see he doesn't seem to love folding to 3-bets in the few samples that have arisen thus far.
This actually gives more validity to 3-betting here. He seems like he enjoys calling raises, he is playing over ⅓ of his hands so far, and seems to be passive overall. We can expect he will probably call much wider than the opponent in the first example. So instead of just TT+/~AK continuing, we can expect most pairs to call, and mistake-prone hands like AJ or KQ. This gives our 3-bet more value and sets us up for a nice and profitable spot postflop.
Because we are in position, a 3-bet is even better. We will be able to close action postflop. So say we 3-bet, he calls, the flop comes K87 and he checks to us, we can check behind to control the pot size. Of course, we will have to deal with an A or K hitting the flop about 35% of the time, but when we are in position it will be much easier to handle optimally. Plus, we got direct value from him preflop, which always helps our bottom line.
The Bluff 3-Bet
As the games get more and more aggressive, we will not only face bluff 3-bets more, but we will get more opportunities to bluff 3-bet ourselves. Bluff 3-betting is very simple, and we do so for one of two reasons. Either the 3-bet is going to be outright profitable, or it is going to be profitable later. Of course, lots of things factor into a good bluff 3-bet, and we will spend this time talking about what to look for.
Let's first look at an example. It folds around to the MP1 who open raises to 3x with $50 at 50NL. It folds to us in the BB with two random cards, $50, and no image. We check the HUD and MP1 is a 15/12 over 2K hands, with an MPPFR of 12%, a Foldv3B of 75%, and a 3B of 3%. We like to check things like his 3B% to see how aware he is of the 3-bet game. The more aware he is, the less we can expect a 3-bet to work because he will understand how to combat it better on average.
If we check out what his range looks like in PokerStove, we see his MPPFR of 12% looks like 22+/AJ+/KJ+. This is his original range (O-range). Next, we want to get an idea of his continuance range (C-range), i.e., what would continue if we 3-bet. Because we are bluffing and looking for outright profitability, we do not care if he continues by flat calling, or continues by 4-betting. We just want to know how often we can expect a fold now. If we can expect an outright fold enough of the time, then we can bluff 3-bet. If we don't expect him to outright fold enough, then we should only 3-bet him for value without other information.
Because we are dealing with a TAG, we can expect that most of his C-range is going to be made up of the
strongest hands. If he were only to continue with TT+/AK, which is fairly logical for a TAG, then he is continuing very tightly. So we can look at this in a mathematical way:
His O-range: 12% of hands (12% of hands make up 100% of his original range)
His C-range: 3.5% of hands (3.5% of hands make up 100% of his continuance range)
To figure out how often we will get a fold we take
So,
We always want to take this number and confirm it with his Foldv3B stat. His Foldv3B stat is 75%, which means we are on the right track as far as his C-range is concerned. The last thing to do is just to check it with the math to make sure our bluff would show an outright profit. Say we 3-bet up to 10.5x, so $5.25. We would be risking $4.75 to win $1.5+$.5+$.25, so $2.25. In this example we would need it to work at least 68% of the time to show a profit. We expect it work about 71% of the time, and thus a 3-bet is outright profitable.
Notice in this entire example we never once looked at our cards. We looked at our opponent, his O-range, his C-range, some basic math between size and ranges, and came up with a profitable play. This is how great poker is played. When plays that we make are based 100% on our opponents and their frequencies, we can shift lots of hands from our fold range or call range into our 3-bet range. There are some other things we can tweak as well to make this play even more profitable.
For instance, we can tweak the size of our 3-bet. Now, as with any bet size that we make, we need to consider some basic bet size theory. Bigger bets tend to get less action, and usually only get action from a stronger range of hands. And smaller bets tend to get more action, and usually from a wider range of hands. So let's first look at some sizes and see how often each size would need to work:
In a pure vacuum, we see how often each 3b size needs to work based on where we are on the table and what size our opponent open raised to. We see that the small 2.5x 3-bet size needs to work significantly less than a 4x 3-bet size. Even just a small difference of .5x changes the % the 3-bet needs to work by almost 3%. While 3% might not seem like much, it can add up quickly if we are making mistakes, and can also add a nice buffer to our plays when we are working in uncertain environments.
So if we are playing with a player who's range continues and folds the same amount, regardless of our 3-bet size, we should always 3-bet as small as possible. However, in the real world, this is almost never the case. Players will continue more liberally against smaller bets, and will usually continue with a smaller and stronger range of hands against larger sizes. Because of this, we need to find a number that doesn't need to work too much to show an outright profit, but isn't so big that is risks too much money. We also don't want to reveal our hand strength in our sizing, which is why we would ideally use the same size for our bluffs and value 3-bets. This makes us tough to play against, and should offer a good parlay overall.
Let's recap some things that make a good bluff 3-bet spot.:
Outright Folds. Our opponent understands and will push the fold button. There are effectively 6 different player types in poker: Nits, TAGs, LAGs, Aggressive Fish (A-Fish), Passive Fish (P-Fish), and unknowns. Because A-Fish and P-Fish don't fold often (outright, nor later), we won't want to bluff 3-bet them hardly ever. Nits usually have an O-Range and C-Range that are too close together to create a profitable bluff 3-bet, so we can't really bluff 3-bet them. We don't have information on unknowns, and we don't want to bluff 3-bet without information, so that is useless. So the only two player types that we should really consider bluff 3-betting are TAGs and LAGs
Ranges. Always make sure we consider O-Range and C-Range. The closer they are to each other, the less we want to bluff 3-bet. The further apart they are, the more we can consider it. As a default, if I know a 3-bet will work at least 75% of the time, I will take it every time.
Future Folds. When bluff 3-betting we pretty much always want to know that it will be outright profitable. If we have information that they call the 3-bet a lot and fold to a CB in a 3-bet pot often, then we can make that play, but often times we don't have conclusive information on that situation.
Risk. Because we have to risk so much, in the relative sense, when 3-betting, we want to be selective with it.
Our Own Range. We don't want to fall into the category of weighting the garbage part of 3-bet range too heavily against players that are paying attention.
Position. Remember that position is king. 3-betting in position will often times create more pressure, and thus more folds. Don't hesitate to 3-bet hands in late position, especially against wider MP/LP O-Ranges and tight C-Ranges.
Equity. A 3-bet that is outright breakeven can still be good if it gets called because our hand has equity. Of course, with position, we will be able to more correctly play our equity out (take free cards when we need to, VB well, etc.). Higher equity hands, like suited hands, hands that have connectivity and can catch straights and draws, etc., can drastically change the EV of a hand when we consider postflop play.
The Other 3-Bet
There are plenty of times when we 3-bet preflop with hands that we would be perfectly happy with an outright fold, but don't hate life if we get called. Hands like AK, AQ, or JJ will often times fall into this category. This section is going to be broken into playing AK and then playing a polarized versus depolarized range.
Playing AK can seem incredibly complicated, and lots of players have their bigger leaks stemming from this hand. The thing about AK is that it is a hand that is a semi-bluff. If we 3-bet AK preflop and win the pot outright, that is a great win for AK. It is a semi-bluff hand that has it's value derived from fold equity, while retaining some strength if given action.
A lot of times players will flat call raises with AK preflop. This should really only be done in super special situations that come up very rarely. In reality, there is almost always more money to be made by 3-betting or folding AK preflop. For instance, take a hand where we are in the BB with AK. UTG raises and it folds around to us. UTG is a 12/5 player with an EPPFR of 4%, which looks like 99+/AK. A 3-bet here will get called by almost all of that range, most of which beats us and will continue beating us on the flop. So rather than mindlessly 3-bet, we might consider folding the hand.
Lots of players think they should call it and play it out. But in doing that, how are they going to make money? They will miss the flop about ⅔ of the time, which means they are just calling preflop with the expectation of losing ⅔ of their call. And the times they do hit, they do so on an A or K high board. A or K high boards are not conducive for getting paid off as smaller pairs shut down very quickly on them, and they create a lot of RIO situations (K high board and we run into AA, or AT6 board and we pay off, TT, etc.).
This is the exact reason why AK should be 3-bet or folded in most situations. AK also has blocker value with it by blocking out the AA and KK part of ranges, thus giving us more folds preflop. It also has a decent amount of value if we get called and go postflop. We will improve almost ⅓ of the time, we improve in a near absolute way, and we can use some scary boards to our advantage due to our lead in the hand. So rather than taking the very passive “call and play fit-or-fold” line, we can take the aggressive line and give ourselves multiple ways to win the pot (outright, bluffing postflop, or with value postflop).
Which brings us right into talking about polarized versus depolarized 3-betting strategies. Polarization means the poles of something, so in terms of a range; nuts or bluff. So a polarized 3-bet range might looks like KK+/trash. Thus, a depolarized range would look something like JJ+/AJ+/KQ. A depolarized range 3-bets the medium-strong hands like JJ or KQ, rather than flatting or folding them like the polarized strategy would.
Polarized ranges are the standard for 3-betters. This kind of range gets direct value when it has the top part (the AA and KK), and gives hands value that have no value (83o or J6s). A polarized 3-bet range takes advantage of fold-rich environments. If a player is going to fold a large percentage of the time, why not 3-bet a weak hand like 73s an
d give it some value? There is nothing inherently wrong with a polarized range, except when the weight gets tipped too heavily one way or the other.
For instance, take Francis. Francis is a 17/15 over 4K hands, with an ATS of 42%, a 3B of 7%, and a Resteal of 12%. We would, without a doubt, consider him an aggressive player who is positionally aware and aggressive while 3-betting. Let's say we figure out that Francis is a polarized 3-better. It folds around to us with $100 at 100NL, we steal with A8s from the CO, and it folds to Francis who 3-bets from the BB. His Resteal is 12%, so we have some idea of his range.
If we first start and assume he would 3-bet QQ+/AQ+ for value, that makes up 4% of hands. But we said his resteal range is 12% of hands, so where does the other 8% of hands come from? They come from the bottom side of his range. Hands like 22-55, A4s, 86s, or even J4o. So we automatically know that ⅔ of his range is weak. This is amazing information. This gives us an idea on how often we can expect a 4-bet to work outright.
Dynamic Full Ring Poker Page 5
