Is a person with a 3bet range of say 11%, more likely to be 3betting a polarized range or a wider strong range? Is there a general preference for either strategy that you guys have?
06-17-2013 08:01 PM
#1
| |
3bet range preflopIs a person with a 3bet range of say 11%, more likely to be 3betting a polarized range or a wider strong range? Is there a general preference for either strategy that you guys have? | |
| |
06-17-2013 09:04 PM
#2
| |
depends on their positions and other factors | |
06-17-2013 09:35 PM
#3
| |
Yeah that's what I'm trying to get at. Do we expect people to use a mixed strategy based on table conditions, or a more fixed strategy of either polarized or not. I mean in personal experience from midstakes 6max cash. | |
| |
06-17-2013 10:53 PM
#4
| |
That's probably impossible to generalize. | |
| |
06-18-2013 03:07 AM
#5
| |
I have a tendency to 3bet such hands more out of position, and call IP. The reasoning is that they are good enough to play, but too hard to play out of position. This is especially true for being in the SB, where a call might invite the BB to come along too. I'm trying to revise this sort of thinking though. | |
| |
06-18-2013 01:00 PM
#6
| |
My logic is that if we call IP, and facing heat on these boards when we spike them, we're likely up against a stronger range (their EP range). By contrast if we call in the BB (or less often in the SB), we're keeping in a ton of dominate hands (high LP stealers will have all K2-K9 stuff, Q2-Q9 etc etc). | |
Last edited by griffey24; 06-18-2013 at 01:02 PM.
| |
06-18-2013 01:32 PM
#7
| |
| |
06-18-2013 01:38 PM
#8
| |
This is very interesting. But I have 2 reasonings for why I do this: | |
| |
06-18-2013 06:41 PM
#9
| |
Wouldn't this technically still be referred to as a polarized range, since we would be 3betting the best hands that we felt a call wasn't profitable with? Whereas, with a depolarized/linear range, we are choosing to 3bet some hands we could profitably call with, expecting the 3bet to get more value due to villain calling with a worse range? | |
06-18-2013 07:02 PM
#10
| |
Assuming you guys have big enough hand samples in your database, I'd advocate running filters for different sets of hands when PFR = false, and cold call = true. | |
| |
06-18-2013 07:55 PM
#11
| |
Nice tip Griffey, gonna do that after study. And I agree with your definition of polarized, although I really like the idea that p4 and stackes used, ie that you have blockers for top hands but you remain aware you're essentially doing a bluff raise. Makes me wonder what the statistical relevance of your blockers is in these spots, and how it weighs up against just picking an opportune time (ie with ATC). | |
| |
06-18-2013 10:33 PM
#12
| |
I've ran those filters recently looking at the profitability of cold calling versus 3betting BTN v CO with various groups of hands (suited connectors, offsuit broadways, suited aces, etc). And in every case, 3betting was by far the most profitable with all the hands I felt were probably borderline. | |
06-26-2013 04:46 AM
#13
| |
Spent 2 hours in Poker Equilab to look at ranges and their equities. I had to think of this thread again, and another question. I have it stuck in my head that a 1:2 bluff:value hands ratio (so 1/3 bluffs) is optimal as an unexploitable strategy, am I remembering correctly or is this about bluffs? (where you bet pot I guess?) What is the mathematical reasoning for a bluff frequency? I find it hard to calculate because there are so many factors, like not just the equity of a hand but how they play on different kinds of flops, the power of position, adjusting to calling frequencies, adjusting to the raisesize-to-pot ratio, which even differs in the SB and the BB (suggesting higher raises in the blinds I think). But I'd love to hear how others look at this. | |
| |
06-26-2013 05:04 AM
#14
| |
|
If you're closing the action in a hu pot on the river and the person before you bets the pot then you need to call with at least 33% of your range to not be exploitable. i.e. Alpha Value. |
06-26-2013 05:14 AM
#15
| |
I'm thinking about it in terms of what an optimal strategy would look like, and why. Not to use a fixed range but to have an idea for where the optimum lies. For example, blinds 1/2 6max, UTG (30/25) opens to 6 and I reraise to 18. In terms of pot, I risk 18 to win 9. What is my optimal percentage of total garbage, from a mathematical perspective, in this spot? | |
| |
06-26-2013 05:27 AM
#16
| |
|
It depends on his opening range, how much he folds to 3bets, how he plays post flop, his 4betting frequencies, how he views you and how much he's been adjusting to what you've been doing, how all the people left to act play, etc etc |
06-26-2013 07:10 AM
#17
| |
I seem to remember a post from many years ago from sauce (or some other pro) on 2+2 that a 1/3 garbage ratio is optimal. But my memory is fuzzy and this 1/3 could have been about how often you want to bluff compared to value bets in a certain spot, not sure. That's why I ask if anyone knows what the generally accepted ideas on this are (or if there are any, or just what the pros have to say about this). | |
| |
06-26-2013 09:18 AM
#18
| |
http://en.donkr.com/forum/optimal-3-...-part-1-533561 | |
Last edited by Stacks; 06-26-2013 at 09:44 AM. | |
06-26-2013 09:26 AM
#19
| |
I think your 1/3rd bluffs kind of rule is more applicable for river bets, because these close the action. | |
| |
06-26-2013 09:48 AM
#20
| |
Even in the scenarios laid out in the article, there has to be assumptions that are always adhered to. Mainly that villain's only possible response to a 3bet is to fold or 4bet. When in reality, they have the option to call. Which would change the situation dramatically, as now our bluff hands would get to realize a portion of their pot equity, as well as we would get to utilize postflop fold equity, etc. | |
06-26-2013 10:23 AM
#21
| |
| |