let's talk about flat calling 3bets preflop

robinlacey

ok i've been thinking about this idea of flat calling 3bets more since it came up in a thread last week and i don't like it one bit.

(http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055123120&page=3)

however,fuzzbox and ste both seemed interested in talking about this more and so am i,so i thought i'd make a thread out of it,(i figured it'd be easier to start a new one than to try and revive an old one)since i'm not certain that i'm right and i'm curious to see where they (and other posters obviously) stand on the issue.

all the below is basically me talking out loud,and i've been thinking a bit about it but i haven't gone through everything so i'll be interested to see what people think,but basically what i did was describe roughly what i intuitively feel on the issue and try to explain why i think what i do. i'm no good at maths at all so once the discussion gets started it might be an idea for someone to run a few numbers on things,especially once ste and fuzzbox say what they had in mind in the other thread.



i think intuitively it might seem that because people's 3betting ranges are so wide these days,we can profitably start to flat call these 3bets more often,which if i understood the posts on the other thread correctly is what is being suggested.

in practice however i don't see how this works.

first of all,to make sure we're all on the same page here,this is what i'm assuming:

- roughly 100bb stacks. the bigger the stacks the more often i'm calling 3bets,i presume thats a given.once we get to 200bb stacks i'm probably flat calling with 80%+ of my opening range.

- default game conditions-ie five or six players,and the player in the hand isn't a total head-the-ball. obviously there are some players who we can flat call 3bets against a lot,either cause they're insanely weak postflop (this is very very rare in my experience) or because they're total nutjobs who will stack off with overcards or whatever.these situations are too subjective to talk about generally i think. so we're assuming that the 3bettor is a solid enough player-he may be bad,but he's not totally insane. also i presume we have been playing fairly standard tight agressive stuff.

-the 3bet is for a decent amount,basically at least 3 times our initial raise.obviously i call much more minreraises,because we are more likely to be priced in and also out of spite.

-for the minute i'll just assume we're talking about cold calling 3bets preflop in position,since there's even more reasons not to cold call these bets oop.

-also,i'll presume we're talking about our opening range excluding mid-high pockets pairs,which there are often good reasons to flat call with,since i presume we are flat calling with these reasonably regularly already.i'll also exclude AK,and accept that sometimes calling with AQ too is fine.

if anyone thinks i'm way off in any of these assumptions obviously let me know,but this is what i was thinking of when i said people should call 3bets less,which is what fuzzbox and ste were talking about.



ok,so we raise in late position,as happens about one in every four hands,and we get reraised by one of the blinds(which seems to happen every single these days)

at the moment i think that,given the above assumptions,we should pretty much never be flat calling here,maybe one in thirty times or something i will (and i'll usually instantly regret it) but beyond that i wouldn't.

fuzzbox and ste seemed to be suggesting,and i hope i'm not misrepresenting them here,that we should be thinking about calling more often. ste you said you'd call with "at least 100bbs" with a lot of hands,i'm wondering how often you will call with 100-120bbs,after that there's obviously much more room to manouver. it was also mentioned that we should call more often when we think we are ahead of the villains 3betting range,which lets face it is going to happen a lot the way the games have gone.

first of all i don't think that just because we are ahead of his range we should call whenever we raise with say QK or A9 and get reraised. if we called every time we thought we were ahead of someone's range things would get out of hand,obviously we do most of them,but sometimes we call a raise with AQ or 33 from the blinds and check fold the flop,even though we are ahead of his range for raising and c-betting. (obviously sometimes we bluff lead or check raise his c-bet,i just wanted to make the point that we don't necessarily call whenever we are ahead of the villains range)

the times we don't call despite being ahead of the villains range are the times when it is going to be too awkward to find out if we are still ahead of his range later on in the hand,in smaller pots this usually has to do with position,and what i am saying is that in reraised pots the dynamics have been changed meaning that even in position things are going to be too tricky.

the trouble is that most competent players who 3bet from the blinds are going to bet almost any flop.ok,so knowing that surely we can just call with a lot of hands,or maybe even raise?

i dunno,lets say 100bb stacks,we make it 3.5 bbs,BB makes it 13.
we call,theres now 27 or so big blinds in there. villain leads for 23. if we call,either because we think we are still ahead of villains range,or with the intention of bluffing him later in the hand,we are in a helluva spot on the turn.

the problem is,and this is what i think is crucial,that the pot is going to be the size of our stack,roughly.

this takes away the option of floating almost completely as i see it,since if the villain has a hand he is willing to felt with he will often check the turn,and this isn't really even making a mistake,since there's only a pot sized bet left to go in.therefore our float is dead in the water,since his turn check doesn't indicate any real weakness.

ok,so the bluff is out,what about the chance that we are ahead of his range?
this is a bit more promising,i presume most of us are already calling 3bets and calling a lot of flops with stuff like TT for this reason,so why not expand this idea a bit more?

well first of all i hate being in that spot with TT,and i'm not even sure if i'm ahead calling with it most of the time in those circumstances,its hard to play right when just one over flops,or when the board comes rags even.however in general i always feel thatTT is just too strong a hand to fold to a 3bet preflop in these games(and too weak to 4bet for value with),and often to a flop bet too. (as i typed that i started to question my assumptions about TT there,i'll have to think about that more and i probably already should have,since this a situation that comes up a lot)

anyway,back to our situation-we called preflop because we thought we were ahead of his range.now he's bet the flop,and there's a good chance we're still ahead of his range. this situation kind of reminds of when i first learned about poker and you learn about the concept of "trouble hands"

this just seems like a trouble spot to me,obviously you shouldn't be avoiding making tough decisions,since this is what poker is all about. however,i think you should be avoiding making decisions where you don't have enough information to make a good one,which is how i see this situation.

its the same stack sizes problem as with the flop-we call the flop,then there's only a pot sized bet left.so if he checks the turn,its tempting to feel like we were right to put ourselves ahead of his range and call the flop.the trouble is yet again though that his turn check really gives us very little information.we can often safely fold to a river push i suppose,but at this stage we've already got a third of our tank in there,and we've presumably got a hand with some showdown value. i just think that in this situation we're trying to act on too little information too much of the time,and i don't see a way around it.

(the one other option if of course that the villain will sometimes check the flop,however i think its way too common for 3bettors to check push the flop with overpairs and strong draws these days for a flop bet here to be much use,its very rare that someone 3bets preflop and check folds the flop,and against players who will we can just put a note on them and do it all the time till they notice.)

it all comes down to the fact,i think,that in a reraised pot where the 3bettor has been first to act and c-bet,a turn bet and check can mean exactly the same thing.obviously there are loads of situations in poker where something means one of two things,but i can't think of another situation where the context is so unhelpful and the two actions so close in meaning.

one thing i would be curious to see,and this actually scares me a little,is if,with that fancy new pokertracker style program i forget the name of,it would be possible to figure out someones three betting frequency,then their c-betting frequency,and then figure out of it is profitable to just call every 3bet for a while and then just push over them on the flop.obviously they would catch on after a while but it might be something that could start happening,although god i hope not the games are tough enough as it is! anyway that's a maths thing so i'd be useless at figuring it out but i'd be interested to see what conclusions anyone reaches. and for the love of god,on the off chance that they haven't thought of it already,don't post it to twoplustwo if you do!

anyway,i'm far from certain about the above but that explains why i was saying what i was in the other thread about not flat calling 3bets preflop except in very specific circumstances.

i'd be interested to hear what everyone else thinks.

Bozzer

Nice post robin. I’ll just add some thoughts on the topic (most of which arose during msn convos with a highly respected 2plus2 poster).
Disclaimer: recently getting back into the game and am only playing 1/2 nl fwiw.

Defending vs light 3-bettors oop

• depends on how light and your opening range - your opening range from early position should be almost prohibitively 'tight' for them to get too loose
• let's say you open 22 - light reraiser from the button, standard 100bb stacks - fold.
• fold with smaller pairs with 100bb stacks.
• if he's very out of line and continuation bets every time i'd recommend calling with 99+, AK/AQ and shoving overpairs + AK/AQ 75% or so
• like you open AQ he reraises from button - call with AQ 50-75% of the time preflop and shove the flop 75% of the time you see it and it's rags.
• dont do it ALL the time - otherwise he'll quickly adjust and destroy you and be LESS inclined to call-shove overcards if you've recently c/r'd him all-in
• the reason why overcards are better is, of course, because they have more equity vs. his calling range than small pairs
• if a small pair gets called it's dead in the water..
• overcards, prob have 20% equity or more - which means he has to fold LESS often for your play to be profitable



• the looser his preflop reraising range the lighter you can call preflop; the tighter his calling range the more often you can shove flops
• the relative tightness of his calling range given his preflop range determines your preflop/flop strategy
• so if he's reraising very light preflop but calls very light postflop you're better off ditching bad hands
• do not do this too often
• it is +EV but only assuming certain things are true. if you think for whatever reason your opponent has tightened his 3betting range even slightly or reduced his cbet frequency with hands that missed - you're making a grave mistake check-raising all-in in those spots
• you can't be predictable. mix it in.. but do not do it often.



• i'd mix some 4betting in. 4betting is more attractive as they reraise more frequently, especially if they play well post-flop - mixing in flop checks
• i'm more inclined to 4bet vs. loose reraisers out of the blinds and with a very tight range from EP facing a CO or BUT reraiser

Defending vs light 3-bettors in position

• again i'd start by adding hands with high card strength and suitedness
• smaller pairs added as stacks get over 130bb or so - suited connectors around the same stack depth
• reraising 22+, A9+ is just super easy to exploit
• call, float
• call, shove
• you're folding like 75% of your range after you cbet on random flops
• ultimately a lot of fooling around in 3bet pots can lead to unnecessary variance
• a lot of money is going in the pot and you don't have a ton of information, so you have to be reasonably certain your assumptions are true


FTP’s pr1nnyraid had some thoughts on this subject a few months back

Someone said you never fold to a 3bet...explain.

here's an example for you. TAG 3-bets me and I have XY. I know/believe they're 3-betting light and I call. I flop a gutshot, they c-bet, and I shove. Uh oh, I run into AA. He wins a stack. Or, I call with XY, shove with air and run into a set. Spewing money, yes? Of course. But for one, they WILL fold on lots of occasions, and occasionally fold the best hand, to START, and secondly, if they see me shoving with nothing, they're going to have to bet/call with the bulk of their range in the future, no? Like 99 on a J high flop or even QQ on an A high flop? Which means that if I adjust well enough, I can start getting AI with JT on that J high flop or A5s on that A high flop, whereas if normal considerations were in effect, I'd be calling and hoping to check it down. Another consideration: TAG sees me calling his 3-bets with whatever I opened with. He now feels that he needs to continue to 3-bet me light because his hand preflop is perceived to be better than mine preflop, with no plans for how to play me OOP in a bloated pot postflop. Which leads to people bet/calling AT on QQ4 flops against me when I shove 66.

A little rambly, but it's all part of a larger gameplan. And it can be really high variance and result in massive downswings if I'm not paying a lot of attention.

Same goes for OOP play - you're sure a guy 3-bets light, so instead of 4-betting, you decide to call and c/r AI any decent-looking flop, knowing that they c-bet 100% of the time and will have to fold many, many of the hands they've reraised with.

fuzzbox

This is very long, and I havent had time to read it properly and digest it properly.

My thoughts on expanding a calling range (especially in position), stem from my own experience in 3-betting light Vs an LP raiser, from the blinds, and them calling my 3-bet. Now, I find myself in much much worse position than they are in, on the turn, given A. a flop bet, and B. a flop call.

Now I am oop with a pot bet left on the turn in a very inflated pot with absolutely no idea if my opponent is strong/weak/floating. I believe that the 3-bettor is in a worse position than the caller.

Also - it can go lp raise, blind 3-bet, lp call, blind bet flop, lp shove. And once again, if I'm light, then I'm in a bad spot.

Since I find it troublesome to play against the guy who calls 3-bets somewhat light, then I wonder if I should expand my calling range in this spot myself.

AmarilloFats

robinlacey wrote:

lets say 100bb stacks,we make it 3.5 bbs,BB makes it 13.
we call,theres now 27 or so big blinds in there. villain leads for 23. if we call,either because we think we are still ahead of villains range,or with the intention of bluffing him later in the hand,we are in a helluva spot on the turn.

the problem is,and this is what i think is crucial,that the pot is going to be the size of our stack,roughly.

The inherent advantage of being first to act in a 27bb pot with 87bb left is pretty strong imo. By 3betting pre villain has deprived us of room to manoeuvre ..We can't really float his c-bet and a raise of his cbet commits most of our tank. It seems to be a very strong position to be in!

We can't call 77 88 99 TT for set value alone
We should flat call with AA KK occasionally..Go for stack a donk
But most I like the idea that, against frequent 3bettors, we should "narrow our opening range and widen our 4bet range"..

CaptainNemo

With 100BBs this is a tricky question. With 300BBs + I think there's a lot of value in calling 3bets with a very wide range.

BigCityBanker

robinlacey wrote:

i dunno,lets say 100bb stacks,we make it 3.5 bbs,BB makes it 13.
we call,theres now 27 or so big blinds in there. villain leads for 23. if we call,either because we think we are still ahead of villains range,or with the intention of bluffing him later in the hand,we are in a helluva spot on the turn.

.
.
.

a turn bet and check can mean exactly the same thing.obviously there are loads of situations in poker where something means one of two things,but i can't think of another situation where the context is so unhelpful and the two actions so close in meaning.

For me it boils down to this.

AmarilloFats

fuzzbox wrote:

My thoughts on expanding a calling range (especially in position), stem from my own experience in 3-betting light Vs an LP raiser, from the blinds, and them calling my 3-bet. Now, I find myself in much much worse position than they are in, on the turn, given A. a flop bet, and B. a flop call.

Now I am oop with a pot bet left on the turn in a very inflated pot with absolutely no idea if my opponent is strong/weak/floating. I believe that the 3-bettor is in a worse position than the caller.


Since I find it troublesome to play against the guy who calls 3-bets somewhat light, then I wonder if I should expand my calling range in this spot myself.

I disagree that the 3bettor OOP is in a worse position.

BUT- if a hand has got to the turn after 3 bet from the blinds and a call of a c-bet

---

USUALLY(taking Robin's assumptions) the 3bettor will have the worst hand.

fuzzbox wrote:

Also - it can go lp raise, blind 3-bet, lp call, blind bet flop, lp shove. And once again, if I'm light, then I'm in a bad spot.

i don't see how this is helpful fuzzbox.of course this "could happen" .so what?

fuzzbox

AmarilloFats wrote:

I disagree that the 3bettor OOP is in a worse position.

BUT- if a hand has got to the turn after 3 bet from the blinds and a call of a c-bet

---

USUALLY(taking Robin's assumptions) the 3bettor will have the worst hand.

I dont see how this is true. You 3-bet in blinds, then c-bet flop, and get called. First, we dont know what sort of hands you tend to show up with here, so how do we know that you are usually behind if you get called on any random flop?

i don't see how this is helpful fuzzbox.of course this "could happen" .so what?

Its not supposed to be helpful - Im trying to show how, if you 3-bet light, you can get put into nasty spots by somebody who calls relatively light, in position.

Van Dice

2 excellent posts from robinlacey and Bozzer, need to rereread!

Ste05

AmarilloFats wrote:

I disagree that the 3bettor OOP is in a worse position.

BUT- if a hand has got to the turn after 3 bet from the blinds and a call of a c-bet

---

USUALLY(taking Robin's assumptions) the 3bettor will have the worst hand.

I'm glad you started this thread Robin, I'm up to my eyes at the minute to reply properly, but I will later, however one point to take note of is the Blind 3-better has by far the worse position, all he knows is we've raised PF then called a 3-bet, he has very little knowledge, and before he finds out anything he will have committed 1/3 of his stack, (13BB's for the 3-bet and then another ~20 in his inevitable C-bet) we have complete control of the hand, we can decide to 4-bet and see if he wants to get AI PF, he'll fold all hands he's not willing to push with, so there's no problem just calling when in position with AA/KK as well, we haven't shown weakness, in fact we've shown strength. I could go on for ages about this, I'm basically doing the same thing Robin did and just thinking out loud, I'll continue my ramble later.

But one of the most important thing that changes and makes our position much stronger is that we will see the flop texture before making a decision and can base our decision based on that, in general as Robin says, the 3-bettor will nearly always fire a c-bet, (unless the flop is really gross) we can then see what the flop texture is like see what it looks like, decide if: (a) will it fit his range (b) does it fit our perceived range (c) does it actually hit us at all (d) etc. etc. etc. There's no calling to see what he does on the turn in my mind, if I call the flop, I'm letting him bluff his chips off, or not allowing him to fold a weaker hand then mine. I'm usually pushing or folding based on my perceived fold equity, my hand equity against his range, history etc. etc. it's a shallow hand and should be played as such with adjusted hand ranges based on history and table dynamics.

If he checks the flop then the whole thing changes again but again we have more information. I'll post more later....

I'm looking forward to this thread and I didn't re-read what I wrote above nor put a whole lot of thought into it so if it's complete gobbledygook, apologies I'll correct it later, also Nice posts Bozzer and Robin.

NickyOD

Thanks for coming back bozzer!!

When it comes to calling 3bets there is a hell of a lot of data that should influence your decision.

- Obviously your opponents range is the most important factor, but also....

- How does he play postflop. Does he fold overpairs or does he go into trappy passive mode which makes it very unprofitable to call 3bets, or is he a bad tag who can't fold postflop and goes bananas with AK, These palyers you call more. even though both probably have the same preflop 3betting range.

- What is your table image. If it's bad cold calling overpairs probably has a lot more value but connected drawing hands probably don't. If it's good then you should probably begin to widen your range against all your opponents.

- What history do you have with this player? Will he get the impression you're getting out of line or have you been caught overshoving flops with air already? Have you always just 4 bet your big pairs or cold called against him. Have you dogged him calling a reraise with J-8o? Whatever you have done recently you should probably keep changing it up.

Here are 2 hands I probably misplayed.

Hand 1:

$2-$4 I raise a very tight player (17/5) from the SB for the 4th orbit in a row. The table in general has been very tight and I have been laggy.

I make it $14. He makes it $48. We both have about $650 maybe more. I call.

Flop is Q-T-6r. I check. He checks behind.

Turn is a 3. I bet 66 he calls.

River a blank. I check. He checks behind with AK.

The most important thing to learn from this hand is that I can't make this preflop call the next time I play this player because he will either decide not to reraise me with AK any more or learn to c-bet the flop, but even so my preflop call in this initial hand probably bad against this type of player since I can probably rarely play a big pot with him although I might be able to now after showing this hand.

Hand 2.

I open from EP for $16 with QQ and the button who is new to the table. min re-raises me on the button. He has $280. The BB colds calls the $28. Back to me and $12 to call into a $68 pot Probably very profitable to just call but I feel like I end up folding the best hand on the flop way too often so I make it $90 to go. He min reraises me again for $60 more. I fold.

Is my 4 bet bad? If yes then I should probably just call with KK also since it is basically the same hand as QQ in this situation.

Hectorjelly

Ive been up for over 24 hours so I'm not going to attempt a long post. But a couple of months ago I totally changed my play from almost never calling three bets to calling a lot of them. Ive found it quite profitable, the average hand that you are playing against is now much less strong so semi-bluffs are much more successful. This is at the lower limits though where I probably enjoy a much bigger edge over players than people playing 5-10 or higher.

AmarilloFats

Good post Ste.

Ste05 wrote:

all he knows is we've raised PF then called a 3-bet, he has very little knowledge. so there's no problem just calling when in position with AA/KK as well,
we haven't shown weakness, in fact we've shown strength.

AS opposed to what exactly? What other normal courses of action could lead to a more accurate read? The preflop action does NOt lead to you having more info than the 3bettor.. I don't think either player has shown weakness!

the logic that " if we have AA KK and flat call the 3bet he is going to hang himself " just doesn't cut the mustard.
Aggressive players win more money cause they don't run into monsters often enough.
And to react to the aggression in pots of this size mean you often need to commit your stack...
Meanwhile the 3bettors are picking up a lot of smaller/medium sized pots.





My point is - when the 3bettor bets 23bb into the 27bb that is a great deal of pressure.
SURe sure you could have a set; slowplayed AA KK or flopped the nuts ..BUT usually you wont have that great a hand and neither will he ...
If you're gonna continue you're have to bluff push or float alot with only a PSB left,,,,....

imo With 2 players in the above situation it makes more sense to be the 3bettor, the one applying the pressure.

fuzzbox

AmarilloFats wrote:

Aggressive players win more money cause they don't run into monsters often enough.
And to react to the aggression in pots of this size mean you often need to commit your stack...
Meanwhile the 3bettors are picking up a lot of smaller/medium sized pots.

Aggression can be a good thing, and in general its often better to be the one who is the more aggressive.

However, too much aggression can be a bad thing, and it is also exploitable.

When ppl continue to 3-bet my LP opens, then I feel that I should combat this in some way. I believe that 4-betting is quite risky, and that, over the long term, it doesnt make me more difficult to play against. However, calling these 3-bets more liberally, especially since I have position, can surely be a good thing.

By calling in position, I have lots of options and we have only comitted circa 10-20% of our stacks thus far. Now on the flop, generally the 3-bettor comes out firing. Now he puts in another 8-15% of *his* stack, BEFORE I make a decision on what to do.

I can still do a lot of things now
If I have a big hand and he is aggro, then I can call here, hoping to trap him for the rest of his stack.
If he calls too much, then I can value-shove my big hands
If he folds too much, then I can semi-bluff a wider range than normal
If he bluffs too much, then I can call him down light, allowing him to continue to bluff Vs my hand
If he gives up easily, then I can call here and when he chks the turn I can shove.
If he plays straight forward, then I can call here with a one-pair hand, then if he shoves the turn, I call if I improve, and fold if not, and if he chks the turn, then I can shove with the best hand/to push him off a hand like 88 on a TQ3 board.

Basically - I should use his constant 3-betting against him, if I can. Yes there will be variance, and yes, I'm gonna get my stack in bad sometimes. But overall, I am surely much much harder to play against ... AND I can better get paid when I *do* have a big hand.

Anyway - those are some of my thoughts. I dont think it should be dismissed out of hand, because I do believe that there is lots of strategy around this, that would be good to talk about. I know that I dont play these spots as well as I would like, and I also know that I am being 3-bet much much much much more than normal, and so we need an effective counter to this.

CaptainNemo

AmarilloFats wrote:

Aggressive players win more money cause they don't run into monsters often enough.
And to react to the aggression in pots of this size mean you often need to commit your stack...
Meanwhile the 3bettors are picking up a lot of smaller/medium sized pots.

.

As a general rule I think becoming passive is a losing play in all types of NL except in very specific circumstances, e.g. if there is a maniac at the table who bets all the time but folds when raised. But up against a thinking player you will just lose in the long run through playing passively.

If you don't want to fold the TT because you think you're ahead of the bettor's range then why not shove? And if you think you're behind the range then a fold is totally fine. And IMO if you're not sure then folding is by far the better option.

If you find it uncomfortable playing TT against a reraise then you may even consider mixing in some limp-reraising with this hand so that you're the one applying maximum pressure?

Just for clarity, I'd much rather be calling a 3-bet with 76s than TT.

fuzzbox

Also - if I call regularly, then I am kinda forcing the 3-bettor to put in 25%-40% of his stack in order to win the pot from me. He would like to win my 3% raise regularly, but if he cannot do that, then he has a very big risk, out of position, with a marginal hand.

His other option, is to stop 3-betting me so much (which would be nice).

CaptainNemo

fuzzbox wrote:

His other option, is to stop 3-betting me so much (which would be nice).

If someone is regularly reraising me in situations like this then every now and then I will shove over the top. Based on their frequency of reraising you would have to be very unlucky to run into a hand that they can call a push with, and if you do this a couple of times they will slow down against you. I prefer to counter aggression with aggression.

fuzzbox

CaptainNemo wrote:

If someone is regularly reraising me in situations like this then every now and then I will shove over the top. Based on their frequency of reraising you would have to be very unlucky to run into a hand that they can call a push with, and if you do this a couple of times they will slow down against you. I prefer to counter aggression with aggression.

By doing that I completely negate my positional advantage. I also allow him to play perfectly against me.

CaptainNemo

fuzzbox wrote:

By doing that I completely negate my positional advantage. I also allow him to play perfectly against me.

I think by calling you're making a mistake in order to allow him to make a mistake. I'm more concerned about the psychology of the situation rather than whether you obtain the right result in this 1 particular hand. You have to make him fear 3-betting you, which he's not going to do if you just cold-call him.

I'm not saying you should always shove, just that you should do it once or twice if you are being reraised regularly. You need to be feared, and if you're seen to be raising, then only calling a reraise, players won't fear your raises at all.

fuzzbox

CaptainNemo wrote:

I think by calling you're making a mistake in order to allow him to make a mistake. I'm more concerned about the psychology of the situation rather than whether you obtain the right result in this 1 particular hand. You have to make him fear 3-betting you, which he's not going to do if you just cold-call him.

I'm not saying you should always shove, just that you should do it once or twice if you are being reraised regularly. You need to be feared, and if you're seen to be raising, then only calling a reraise, players won't fear your raises at all.

I dont agree with your assessment. If I am 3-betting a LP opener fairly light, and he is calling me with more than normal regularity, then I find him very difficult to play, and would fear that situation.

If he only ever 4-bets or folds, then it doesnt really bother me too much.

CaptainNemo

fuzzbox wrote:

I dont agree with your assessment. If I am 3-betting a LP opener fairly light, and he is calling me with more than normal regularity, then I find him very difficult to play, and would fear that situation.

If he only ever 4-bets or folds, then it doesnt really bother me too much.

Maybe it depends on the type of players you're facing. But if I maneuver an opponent into calling my reraises or continuation bets with weaker hands than he normally would, I consider myself to be in an ideal situation to stack him.

You may be more than good enough to handle situations like this and judge whether you are probably ahead or behind. But the situations that have made me the most money in cash games are where my opponent has decided that because I am perceived as playing loose and aggressive, a good strategy is to just call me with a good hand and allow me to dictate the play for a while. I find it hardest to play my natural game when another player is countering me with aggression and in that situation I will be forced to change gears and adopt a more "normal" game, and isn't that your goal here, where you want the guy to stop 3-betting you quite so much?

I may be playing at a much lower level than you so like I said maybe what I'm saying applies less at your level if the players are in general touch, perceptive, and hard to get paid off against.

cardshark202

Great posts here. I really like your line of thinking fuzz. Its something I would like to incorporate more into my game. Oh and welcome back bozzer!

fuzzbox

CaptainNemo wrote:

Maybe it depends on the type of players you're facing. But if I maneuver an opponent into calling my reraises or continuation bets with weaker hands than he normally would, I consider myself to be in an ideal situation to stack him.

Equally, if I maneuver my aggressive opponent into situations where he bluffs his stack off too much, or he is prone to calling off his stack too light postflop when I have a relatively big hand, then I think that can be considered an ideal situation to stack him.

You may be more than good enough to handle situations like this and judge whether you are probably ahead or behind. But the situations that have made me the most money in cash games are where my opponent has decided that because I am perceived as playing loose and aggressive, a good strategy is to just call me with a good hand and allow me to dictate the play for a while. I find it hardest to play my natural game when another player is countering me with aggression and in that situation I will be forced to change gears and adopt a more "normal" game, and isn't that your goal here, where you want the guy to stop 3-betting you quite so much?

Well I want to make money, if he wants to 3-bet me light, then I want to try to find a really good way to exploit his actions. Playing in position, in big pots is surely an advantage that I do not want to pass up.
Obviously I dont call light Vs everybody, and I continue to fold Vs 18/5 dudes, but if its a 27/22, then I cant just let him run over my LP opens, and 4-betting can be v.risky.

Also - this approach will make me look loose and aggressive, which is something that you want also ... right?

ocallagh

3-bets seem to have reduced the skill level required to play the turn or river with only 100BBs. Your decision preflop, on the flop including mainly position, ranges(PAHUD etc), FE and PE (and also your ability to hit flops) have taken over 100BB NLHE.

I think it's time we had 300BB tables so we can play a turn and a river in 3-bet pots.

AmarilloFats

^^v. good posts.

a quick question...
Take Robin's example...
"Lets say 100bb stacks we make it 3.5bb in LP,BB makes it 13.
We call ,theres now 27 or so big blinds in there. villain leads for 23."

lets assume

We have a range for opening in LP of the top 25% of hands.
Villain's 3betting range is identical to our opening range ie 25%.
We call his 3bet with our entire opening range ie 25%.

Flop comes xxx villain leads out for 23bb into 27bb

Who has advantage?
Perhaps if each are versed in Bozzer's counter strategy they are both have the same equity.

But if the player in position does not call/ raise/ raise all in with nothing occasionally he will be in a losing situation.
I am fairly sure players are not adapting well to a 3 bet an a strong lead with 100bb

the fact that when most players call the 3bet and then fold unimproved on flop makes the 3bet c-bet stategy the stronger of the 2 positions....for the time being

sikes

Captain, do you really 4bet shove? 100BB, raise to 3, three bet to 12, shove 97, to win 15/16. Looks pretty crap. The more complex you make poker, ie the more streets you play the better, 4 betting is totally overrated especially 4bet shoving.

However, plenty of food for thought.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

CaptainNemo

fuzzbox wrote:

Well I want to make money, if he wants to 3-bet me light, then I want to try to find a really good way to exploit his actions. Playing in position, in big pots is surely an advantage that I do not want to pass up.
Obviously I dont call light Vs everybody, and I continue to fold Vs 18/5 dudes, but if its a 27/22, then I cant just let him run over my LP opens, and 4-betting can be v.risky.

Also - this approach will make me look loose and aggressive, which is something that you want also ... right?

I agree with what you're saying in general about playing big pots in position but what people are saying in this thread is that 100BBs is too small to exploit position properly after the pot has been built to a certain level preflop. If he c-bets on the flop there is essentially no play left and you simply have to decide if you have the best hand or not and play accordingly. This will probably end up forcing you to tighten up on your raising requirements from LP. However if he's widening his 3-betting requirements why shouldn't you widen your 4-betting requirements, isn't that a logical extension?

I agree there is more risk involved and of course I'm not suggesting doing this more than say 20% of the time that he 3-bets. But against a player showing so much aggression against you it's like Doyle says, you're "fixing to play a pot" because otherwise he is too hard to play against.

ocallagh

some really great posts here. Mods I would suggest throwing this into the poker guide.

fuzzbox wrote:

Aggression can be a good thing, and in general its often better to be the one who is the more aggressive.

However, too much aggression can be a bad thing, and it is also exploitable.

When ppl continue to 3-bet my LP opens, then I feel that I should combat this in some way. I believe that 4-betting is quite risky, and that, over the long term, it doesnt make me more difficult to play against. However, calling these 3-bets more liberally, especially since I have position, can surely be a good thing.

By calling in position, I have lots of options and we have only comitted circa 10-20% of our stacks thus far. Now on the flop, generally the 3-bettor comes out firing. Now he puts in another 8-15% of *his* stack, BEFORE I make a decision on what to do.

I can still do a lot of things now
If I have a big hand and he is aggro, then I can call here, hoping to trap him for the rest of his stack.
If he calls too much, then I can value-shove my big hands
If he folds too much, then I can semi-bluff a wider range than normal
If he bluffs too much, then I can call him down light, allowing him to continue to bluff Vs my hand
If he gives up easily, then I can call here and when he chks the turn I can shove.
If he plays straight forward, then I can call here with a one-pair hand, then if he shoves the turn, I call if I improve, and fold if not, and if he chks the turn, then I can shove with the best hand/to push him off a hand like 88 on a TQ3 board.

Basically - I should use his constant 3-betting against him, if I can. Yes there will be variance, and yes, I'm gonna get my stack in bad sometimes. But overall, I am surely much much harder to play against ... AND I can better get paid when I *do* have a big hand.

Anyway - those are some of my thoughts. I dont think it should be dismissed out of hand, because I do believe that there is lots of strategy around this, that would be good to talk about. I know that I dont play these spots as well as I would like, and I also know that I am being 3-bet much much much much more than normal, and so we need an effective counter to this.

Great post.

Coupled with Bozzers post and also some refining preflop I think it could be very effective. Variance could be high, but it will be fun.

CaptainNemo

sikes wrote:

Captain, do you really 4bet shove? 100BB, raise to 3, three bet to 12, shove 97, to win 15/16. Looks pretty crap. The more complex you make poker, ie the more streets you play the better, 4 betting is totally overrated especially 4bet shoving.

However, plenty of food for thought.

The 1st point is that if he is 3-betting so much, but is also a good player, then almost all of the time he can't call this. You may be horrendously unlucky and walk into a monster but based on his frequency it really would be unlucky.

The 2nd point is that if you are doing this a small but significant % of the time you will discourage what he is doing. The point is not to win the money in the pot, although that would be nice. The point is to discipline someone who isn't taking your raises seriously.

If there's someone at the table regularly reraising me then yes, I will do this every now and then (I'd say 20% or a bit less), and I am very rarely called; also, they will invariably slow down against me at least for a while which is what I want.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.