The 2013 Diary of a Semi-LAG Tilt Monkey

Back in the day when I was playing a lot of golf, I remember hearing that Jack Nicklaus never went into a round of golf or a practice session with more than one thought in his head about improving his swing. In my experience at the poker tables, I've found that the same concept can apply after a study session.

After a study session, I often go straight into a session at the tables with too much vigour and too many new ideas in my head, which ultimately ends up with me misapplying the new concepts whilst forgetting to do the basics right. Clearly I need to take a leaf out of Jack's book and tailor my study to focus on one particular area of much needed improvement in my game at a time.

With that in mind, my focus for the next week will be 3-betting. My current 3-betting strategy is a little bit haphazard, not to mention too low at ~4% with not enough re-stealing. I'm therefore going to take the following concepts from "Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6-Max" to the tables over the next few days and apply the logic in each and every session.

1) 3-betting for value
3-bet 25% of villain's opening range i.e. if villain opens 40% on the btn, 3-bet 10%. The rationale is that hero will be at least a 55% favourite against villain's whole range.

2) 3-betting light
Key considerations that I currently don't think about anywhere near enough when deciding whether to 3-bet light include:

- villain's PFR and our value 3-bet range (3-bet light rarely against tight players)
- his fold to 3bet stat (higher stat, more 3-betting light)
- position (3-bet light more oop, call more ip)
- the number of players left to act (more players left, less light 3-betting)
- the number of callers in the pot (more callers, more light 3-betting).

Now I just need to work out how to play post-flop in 3-bet pots..

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

1) 3-betting for value
3-bet 25% of villain's opening range i.e. if villain opens 40% on the btn, 3-bet 10%. The rationale is that hero will be at least a 55% favourite against villain's whole range.

this is ridiculous imo. the size of their opening range is almost irrelevant in what hands we should 3bet for value. do you understand why? there are heaps of resources on forming 3betting ranges in the Beginers Circle, i suggest you'd be better off reading over them (particularly forming "A,B,C, and D" ranges) than applying this information

Originally Posted by rpm

this is ridiculous imo. the size of their opening range is almost irrelevant in what hands we should 3bet for value. do you understand why? there are heaps of resources on forming 3betting ranges in the Beginers Circle, i suggest you'd be better off reading over them (particularly forming "A,B,C, and D" ranges) than applying this information

Thanks for stopping by rpm. I assume your main concern is that whilst I can technically 3-bet this range for value and show a profit, I'm wasting the value of a large part of this range by 3-betting given most villain's fold too often to 3-bets?

Do you think it's better to widen my value range at the micros though compared to the narrow {QQ+, AK} range that Renton mentions, with most 3-bets reasonably light?

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

Thanks for stopping by rpm. I assume your main concern is that whilst I can technically 3-bet this range for value and show a profit, I'm wasting the value of a large part of this range by 3-betting given most villain's fold too often to 3-bets?

Do you think it's better to widen my value range at the micros though compared to the narrow {QQ+, AK} range that Renton mentions, with most 3-bets reasonably light?

my main concern with that idea, unless of course i misunderstood it, is that it instructs you to 3bet a certain % of what you believe your opponent to be opening. but the main factor we should be considering is what range they continue with when we are 3betting for value. 3betting AQo against a person who opens 50% but only continues with QQ+,AK is still spew, make sense? because we value-own ourselves against his continuing range, and we turn a hand which we could very easily call and play profitably into an effective bluff.

as for the second question, yeah i definitely think that's a good idea. look for people who call too many 3bets and rarely 4bet to widen your value 3bet range against.

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

3-bet 25% of villain's opening range i.e. if villain opens 40% on the btn, 3-bet 10%. The rationale is that hero will be at least a 55% favourite against villain's whole range.

I think you're taking Harrington's advice out of context here, Bean, old bean

he only suggests his rule of thumb as a guide for when you have no reliable fold-to-3Bet data on Villain, not as something you should be applying across the board.

i think you also need to be a little leery overall with some of Action Dan's advice as he still seems to think that 3- and 4Betting only happen rarely at the micros, which is patently untrue

Originally Posted by DoubleJ

I think you're taking Harrington's advice out of context here, Bean, old bean

he only suggests his rule of thumb as a guide for when you have no reliable fold-to-3Bet data on Villain, not as something you should be applying across the board.

i think you also need to be a little leery overall with some of Action Dan's advice as he still seems to think that 3- and 4Betting only happen rarely at the micros, which is patently untrue

That's right. I don't think it's particularly good advice either and it's certainly no good for me given how badly I butcher hands post-flop in 3bps.

It's funny that you mention about his stance on the micros, as when I get round to writing a review of the book, this is going to be one of my main criticisms - his take on the micros unfortunately devalues the advice in a decent chunk of the book.

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

his take on the micros unfortunately devalues the advice in a decent chunk of the book.

aye, tis right strange

publication date is June 2010; mebbe the game's changed in that respect over the last 3 or so years?

otherwise, i like all of Dan's books. He can write as well as play, which is rare, and i've liked the "Problems" section in the other books (haven't got to that section in this tome yet, so await your views)

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

Back in the day when I was playing a lot of golf, I remember hearing that Jack Nicklaus never went into a round of golf or a practice session with more than one thought in his head about improving his swing. In my experience at the poker tables, I've found that the same concept can apply after a study session.

This is good. Often in poker you have pros and cons for every decision, the trick is to add the appropriate amount of weight to them. If it's a more complex idea it's probably best to keep it very limited how many of them you want to try out in your game. Having too many such ideas can leave you very confused!

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

1) 3-betting for value
3-bet 25% of villain's opening range i.e. if villain opens 40% on the btn, 3-bet 10%. The rationale is that hero will be at least a 55% favourite against villain's whole range.

I don't think you can realistically implement this though. Better to look at the table action when deciding whether to 3bet or not, less just looking at your hand.

edit: lol sorry for replying to 2 random posts, I hadn't read you blog yet. Your game seems to be very sound, keep on trucking.

Originally Posted by jackvance

edit: lol sorry for replying to 2 random posts, I hadn't read you blog yet. Your game seems to be very sound, keep on trucking.

Hey, thanks for stopping by JV. Please do comment as often as you like - whilst writing something every week or so helps me reflect on my progress (or otherwise), it's always much more useful if there is some feedback and advice from more experienced players on any of the issues I'm whining about.

You're definitely right re the 3-betting of course - I soon realised this static approach was shit!