|
|
 my 3-bet manipulation post for nutsinho's competition
in case anyone is interested. It's not great, hell, Nutsinho noted that nobody who answered this topic really addressed any relevant points, so it's probably shit. Doesn't matter, I enjoyed writing it. Wouldn't mind having the errors pointed out before they go on to lose me money though...
cliff notes - para 7.5 has some simple examples of bet sizing lines vs required streets to get full value 100bb deep.
Acting to control the amount of money involved at various stages during a hand
Also, I use the term value a lot throughout - this can be defined as betting when our range is ahead of their calling range - I think that the importance of our range here is overstated, as we have a specific (and known) hand value within our range, so it can be ok to replace 'our range' with 'our hand'
I also focus here on maximising returns in short and long-term cos i think that balance in any one hand is over-rated (e.g. I'm not shoving for balance when doing so would be stupid....)
1. The classic advice we've all heard is to "play small pots with small (weak) hands, big pots with big (strong) hands" - this advice is good, although it should be interpreted in range context, meaning a hand is only weak in the context of an opponent's range, in some situations TPMK is strong, in others bottom set is weak. Also, this quote uses "to play" while in fact meaning "showdown", use of big-pot plays with a weak hand (but strong range) can be a good play if we are confident that it will result in winning the pot against a range that is stronger than our specific hand (i.e. effective bluffing).
2. 3-bet pots are a special case, due to the pre-flop action the pot is already big once the flop arrives - noting that this means a pot that is big FOR this stage of the hand, not yet a big pot in an absolute sense. A big flop pot-size simply means that it is easier to have more money at stake in later streets. 3-betting (and aggression in general) increases the higher up in stakes you go and the shorter-handed the tables you play. Also, the proportion of regs in the games increases - which means 2 things, 1) that the players are more likely to have some understanding of 3-bet pots, and 2) that you are more likely to have information about your opponents, information that can be used to exploit their behaviour.
3. Before starting, it needs to be noted that our actions can influence the size of the pot being played for, subtle variation in flop bet-sizing can markedly affect the eventual pot size. Our actions can also affect opponent's behaviours, we are always playing to exploit these behaviours to maximise our returns. Most opponents will not distinguish between a flop bet of 60% pot and one of 80%pot, this is important. For example, assuming 100nl and a commmon 3-bet pot on the flop is $25. A flop bet of $14 vs $18.50 is unlikely to have much impact on the response to the bet (but a 53bb turn pot is markedly different from a 62bb turn pot). However, the absolute size of the bet may have an impact, a bet of $17 vs $20 into this same pot is likely to sometimes cause varying responses. It is also important to realise that in normal play (non-3-bet pots), the turn is where committing decisions are made. In 3-bet pots, there is a greater level of commmitment occurring at an earlier stage in the hand, and flop play can result in pot-attachment if not careful.
4. Another incredibly basic thing to note is that there are (short-term view) two ways to win money and two ways to lose money in poker
Winning = showing down with the best hand, opponent folding to our bet
Losing = showing down without the best hand, folding to an opponent's bet
This leads to a central theory of poker: we bet or raise for one of three reasons 1) better hands to fold, (call this something to do with fold equity) 2) worse hands to call, (call this some sort of value) 3) protect our hand.
5. We should already have an understanding of our opponent, 3-betting in an information vacuum is foolish (although the information may be as light as 'villain is unknown, so I'll assume he conforms to my pre-determined "standard unknown" style of play'). The information that is important includes:
3-bet, 4-bet, call 3-bet, & fold to 3-bet ranges of villain, our own such ranges, and an idea of villain's likely perception of our ranges in each of these situations.
Aggressive frequency post-flop
Response to c-bet post-flop
Showdown ranges
6. 3-bet scenarios have two main variables - are we 3-betting or being 3-bet? is this a steal situation? Second question, important to further ask, we may be in a steal situation, but villain may not be playing this way BECAUSE of that, also that the second question merely affects the ranges involved:
Anyway, here are a few scenarios:
a) we open from EP and are 3-bet
b) we open from LP (or raise over limpers) - steal situations, and are 3-bet by button or by blinds
c) we 3-bet an EP open
d) we 3-bet a CO open
e) we 3-bet from the blinds vs a steal
Other scenarios include playing behind a raiser and 3-bettor....
Each of these is scenarios is subject to effective stack sizes. Against short-stacks (<25bb) we should already have a standard line or lines depending on various factors (position, players left to act, short-stack range, our equity vs that range) = all-in or not-all-in?, that is the question....
Effective stack sizes of between 75bb and 130bb play more or less the same. Once stacks become more shallow or significantly deeper the implied threat and risks become different. Most of the discussion below will focus on 100bb-ish stacks, with limited consideration given to deep stack play.
7.1 considering a & b together:
We've raised and someone has 3-bet us. We obviously have 3 options: 4-bet, call, fold. At micro and low stakes, the argument that 4-betting KK/AA, calling 99-QQ with set value, and folding the rest of our range (including AK) is a good strategy has merit - this results in few really difficult post-flop situations and less risk of inappropriately 4-betting A7s vs a SB 3-bet cos some post in the high stakes forum said it was a good idea - so you decided to apply the play without understanding why (sorry if this is sounding autobiographical...) This also means that bet-sizing and pot-size becomes almost irrelevant cos you're folding or getting pot-committed regardless.
7.2 Once 3-betting becomes more common and villains more competent (e.g. higher stakes games, games on a site where everyone bar yosubscribed to Cardrunners with FPPs = thanks for nothing Full Tilt), this exploitable behaviour is more likely to be exploited.
7.3 So, you've been 3-bet. The reasons for 4-betting are as above (para 4). Being able to do this is reliant on putting villain on a range and how each part of this range responds. As an example, if you know that villain is a serial-3-bettor, but folds all bar QQ+/AK to a 4-bet then 4-betting small with the bottom of your range will take down a lot of pots (fold equity), but allow a fold if villain 5-bets. 4-betting bigger makes sense when your range is KK+ as you want to be getting it in against the range that will continue. This is bet-size variation, but not really pot-size manipulation, except that it keeps the pot small enough to get away from with the bottom of your 4-bet range. This also draws on the perception thing described above (para 3), in that most of these villains won't distinguish a 4-bet to 28bb from a 4-bet to 38bb. Tricks like min-4-betting result in horrible spots post-flop as villain should rarely fold - so I don't like doing it. I like balancing my 4-betting range with both hands I would otherwise fold and hands I will happily stack off with preflop (based on reads/situation). This is in contrast to my calling range, which consists of hands I will happily stack off with preflop and hands I will play for set value. 4-bet pots leave little room for pot-size manipulation once a flop occurs, unless the stacks are very deep - in which case the points below still hold.
7.4 as an example:
vs a serial 3-bettor with reads, note small-ish 4-bet size that will accomplish exactly the same as a 4-bet to 35. I'm able to fold here vs a shove and will tread very carefully vs a call.
a) Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (9 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
UTG ($103.55)
UTG+1 ($21.25)
MP1 ($117.25)
Hero (MP2) ($116.40)
MP3 ($100)
CO ($20)
Button ($124.80)
SB ($100)
BB ($40)
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Q , A
3 folds, Hero raises to $3.50, 2 folds, Button raises to $12, 2 folds, Hero raises to $25,
7.5 So you've been 3-bet and have decided to call. The flop pot is 25bb and effective stacks are 100bb-ish. You've already put villain on a range - subconsciously perhaps, cos it's innate now and you're 15-tabling, but you've done it. The flop has flavour against this range, AAK hits a 1.6% 3-bet type pretty hard, K97 rainbow is a little more interesting. The flop has also developed your hand. You already know that 2/3 pot flop , 2/3 pot turn leaves you with only about 30bb behind on the river, cos you did that type of math ages ago cos otherwise you should be spending more time studying some pot-size/bet-size line basics rather than reading this. You may have even come up with an algorithm to make such calculations simple (like the rule of 2&4) but be far too selfish to share it, cos let the lazy fish figure it out for themselves (and even the winning regs mostly haven't done so). Also, if anyone has such an algorithm they wish to subject to peer review, I'm happy to assist.....
You also know what percentage of psb will get the whole stack in the middle on two streets (around 90%, right?), and that 2 streets of 1/2 psb leaves 1/2 pot effective stacks on the river.
Something else worth noting, if you bet pot on the flop in a 3-bet flop and get called 100bb deep both players have less than pot left behind, but you know that already too. You also know whether your opponent is likely to realise this....
as an aside, do the maths twice - for sites with bet pot buttons (standard open 3.5xbb) and without (standard open 4xbb) - it's interesting, but not that interesting....
Are you in position? no? then you probably weren't playing for set odds - right??! and you felt little need to protect your hand. So, chances are you're still happy to stack off on most flops. You have the opportunity to act first. This is all about value, you're not considering fold equity cos you are ahead. How best to maximise value? You check, or you bet. Pretty simple. But you have to make this decision in a relative vacuum unless you have good reads. So stop seeing flops in 3-bet pots out of position without reads! So you're playing for value, check raising is too strong so you have to check call or lead. Downside of check-calling is that you're relying on a c-bet, but you have reads.... here is an example of where check-calling is good with reads http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...nl-t81653.html
Downside of leading is that it looks really strong, unless you can induce your opponent to consider you weak. Looking strong doesn't matter if villain is a station. With AA in this situation I'm happy to take three streets to get it in, there isn't much need to protect my hand, so I'll be putting in a small lead relative to pot - remember that 50% pot will get it in over three streets, and a small bet is more likely to smell weak and induce an overbet from a weak range.
Ok, now consider the more interesting (hopefully more common!) situation of being in position.
Villain either bets or checks. You are either ahead or behind villain's range. You have a set, or you don't. You have TPTK, or you don't. You have an overpair, or you don't. You're hoping that an ace didn't flop to mess up your KK, but it makes folding the flop easy and you can laugh when villain flips AA.
So, you're pretty sure about whether you want to see another card (i.e. still drawing), bet for value, or fold. You also know that you can get your money in over two streets (turn and river) with a monster without even having to bet pot - so you'll let your reads determine whether to bet or not. If you're checked to, consider the flop and villain's range - what about his propensity to c-bomb? how would you handle this? can you induce this? what bet size will do so? is he ever check-folding? what bet size will induce that? if you bet 65% pot on the flop when checked to, you can still get away if required. You can check behind the turn, and you can get a showdown on the river without playing for stacks (playing for stacks you'll know where you think you stand vs range). This is also small enough to get one street of action, check a street, then get another street of action = a good type of value when you hit a monster.
The flop in the hand below is interesting. You called pre-flop for your own reasons, but have a note that villain gives up easily.
Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (9 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
Hero (CO) ($100)
Button ($198)
SB ($192.90)
BB ($200.65)
UTG ($99.05)
UTG+1 ($110.65)
MP1 ($107.90)
MP2 ($105.60)
MP3 ($137.35)
Preflop: Hero is CO with J, J
5 folds, Hero raises to $3.50, 2 folds, BB raises to $11, Hero calls $7.50
Flop: ($22.50) 3 , 4, 2 (2 players)
BB bets $16, Hero calls $16
this call is for value
Turn: ($54.50) 6 (2 players)
BB bets $24,but now - you gotta think you're behind. If you call you have less than half pot left behind on the river. This is where the important decision is.
8. considering c, d, e together:
So someone raised and you've decided to 3-bet. 3-bet sizing is the first step in controlling pot-size. Some advocate a consistent and standard 3-bet sizing as unexploitable, but this may not maximise EV, and maximising EV is more valuable than non-exploitable play (as non-exploitable play is dependent on game theory equilibriums that rarely apply - most players aren't spending hour after hour to identify how best to exploit this one specific variable in YOUR game, rather than the game in general). Nothing wrong with 3-betting smaller in situations where you expect an easy fold (e.g. co vs bu), feel like you want a call and aren't too scared of it, etc. Nothing wrong with 3-betting bigger when villain is calling regardless (cos obviously you're 3-betting for value, otherwise you wouldn't be 3-betting.
We need to consider the strength of our line. By default, 3-betting is a strong line. We need to start considering how villain will perceive our hand strength/range and how to manipulate this to our advantage. Knowing the maths above around what bet sizes will result in what number of required streets betting to stack is as above. The difference is that when we are the aggressor in a 3-bet flop that an opponent has called, opponent normallly considers himself to be ahead or behind our range (even if this is only sub-conscious). This means that various flop bet sizes are unlikely to have hugely different effects - I used to c-bet larger than I should have in 3-bet pots as a default action, until it was pointed out that if a villain is folding to $20 into $25 he is also likely folding $15 into $25, and that's a lot cheaper longterm in the situations where you're aiming for pot control or folding vs resistance.
again, you act either first or second. Acting first consider line strength. Checking screams strength, so consider doing it with weaker holdings (include some balance though!) as a street checked through is a good way to control pot size. Given the size of the pot already, the turn could help villain catch-up a little and can help get more money in the middle - so maybe there is value in seeing a turn. This goes for checking behind as well.
Betting is standard, especially if you're perceived as a c-bet monkey. There are situations where the money is going in regardless (set over set etc), but your bet here is either for value or fold equity - allowing that it's nice to leave yourself room to fold when your 'value' bet is obviously against a holding that has you crushed. Also note that in some situations it's impossible to avoid stacking off in these pots.
Betting for fold equity and you need to consider how often you will win and what bet size will look strong. This is opponent dependent - but betting $10 into $25 can work wonders, especially cos you can balance this play...
that's it, could write forever on this - but I feel like writing about delayed c-betting instead.
oh, and a simple value hand to end with - sometimes poker is more than you expect:
Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (9 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
BB ($200)
UTG ($238.20)
UTG+1 ($248.20)
MP2 ($115.50)
Hero (MP3) ($138.85)
CO ($100)
Button ($228.50)
SB ($278.85)
Preflop: Hero is MP3 with Q, Q
UTG raises to $3.50, 2 folds, Hero raises to $12, 1 fold, Button calls $12, 2 folds, UTG calls $8.50
Flop: ($37.50) 9, 6, K (3 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $22, Button calls $22, 1 fold
Turn: ($81.50) Q (2 players)
Hero bets $81.50, Button raises to $163, Hero calls $23.35 (All-In)
River: ($291.20) Q (2 players, 1 all-in)
Total pot: $291.20 | Rake: $3
Results in white below:
Button had K, K (full house, Kings over Queens).
Hero had Q, Q (four of a kind, Queens).
Outcome: Hero won $288.20
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ISF
