6-max Concepts (Part 3: BB vs. Steals)
Posted by Sean Lefort
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 28 Comments...
I have about 10-12 different questions/topics of discussion I wanted to bring up in reaction to this video but for the sake of discussion I'll limit myself to just a few for now.
First off, I want to pose an alternative method for constructing our 3betting range here. I think a lot of people prescribe to the reasoning you give of adding 3bet bluffs that are just below the threshold of being profitable hands to flat. We are able to maximize our defense % this way, yes, but I think its possible that the +EV we gain from 3betting more playable hands (hands that are also +EV flats) can outweigh the +EV we gain by introducing a wider defense %. When we 3bet hands like 87s instead of 82s we flop more equity/semi-bluffing equity on flop/turns etc and this equity is worth quite a bit more seeing as 3bet pots are 15-20bbs by the flop as opposed to the 4-6bbs in BTN v BB flatting hands. If we 3b bluff a range of hands like 54s/73s/84s/95s/K2s etc we lower our total defense frequency by something like 5-10% but we can add a ton of profitability in 3bet pots. I'm not completely convinced yet about either side of this argument but I think its worth bringing up.
[A minor side note to the above - When I construct my 3b bluffing range here I also use the ratio of about 4:6 value to bluff hands but I have a question as to what consists as a value hand. I'm often 3betting hands like AJo, KQs etc here for value when called, but folding to a 4b or 5b bluffing them. Do you think I should include them in my value or bluffing portion of my range when designing a proper bluff:value ratio?]
I'll finish this massive tome I'm writing with just one more question for now... how do think we should be flatting the BB facing a 50% regs min-raise from the button and a reg's flat from the SB. You advocate a 3b only strategy vs solid opposition as the SB but in practice many regs are flatting the SB here with a 5-10% range of medium strength hands. In this scenario the equity we need to realize drops from 22% to only 16.6%. However our R should go down drastically considering we are now 3way rather than HU and the SB has a relatively strong range. My intuition says we should actually be flatting here a bit tighter (and obviously 3betting wider) than we would be HU vs the BB. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
Very interesting though - great video.
That being said, I do disagree strongly with your value 3-betting range. I think we should definately have hands in that range, that aren't necessarily 5-bet jamming over a 4-bet. I consider hands like KQ and AJ very standard value 3-bets BTNvBB against most regs in midstakes. My GTO coach once said, that every hand, that has >50% equity against villains flatting range versus 3-bets, should be a value 3-bet (this is obv against standard opponents who aren't 4-betting exploitably high amounts or anything). I know that this will narrow your overall VPIP a bit, but I still feel it's the most +EV way to play our range. Thoughts?
One thing why I was waiting this video so much, is that I wanted to see if you were in the "3b-polar OOP"-camp, or "3-bet merge (linear) OOP"- camp. This is kinda the same thing that Zizek already asked about in his post earlier. I know some good players (Sauce mentioned something like this in his NL500 ZOOM vid for example) say that we should 3-bet linear range OOP and some say we should be polarized. Have you ever though about 3-betting linear OOP? Do you have any strong mathematical justifications why 3-betting polar makes our overall range more +EV than 3-betting linear?
Thank you very much for your vids so far and please keep them coming!
Maybe you should consider keeping those things to yourself.
One thing you haven't considered though, is I suspect the wider villain knows you are defending, the lower your R should be.
If I understood correctly, the R gets lower as stacks get shallower. What would be your estimate of R in spots where u call 3bets and 4bets 100BB deep? Also it's obvious that IP we will realize a larger portion of our equity than OOP. What's your best guess on how large this difference is?
Note that Part 4 (the next video) is actually an original "conclusion/wrap-up" video that I made before the release of these videos. It's mostly a lighter content video with more gameplay iirc so don't be concerned when I refer to it in-video as the "conclusion" to the series with your questions not having been discussed yet. I'll keep browsing these comment threads and try to answer the smaller and simpler questions while keeping the more involved topics for Part 6 content where I can expand on them most efficiently.
1.Could you give us some grasp of what you thin resonable winn rate from each positions are
2.Explain a little bit more why we should use 6,9+X? as 3bet/fold range (arent we exploited when 4bet now?)
3.Explain more why you think whe should use "polarise" 3bet range oppose to "linear" range
I think its worth pointing out that some hands vs predictable weak regs or fish can show a consistent R >100. High implied odds hands like 67s or small pairs. For ex. 67s I think would show R>100 vs some villains. 67s is 40% equity vs 50% opening range. With hands such as these with high playability (visibility) we can succcesfully capatilize on increased FE vs some villains and implied odds equity vs others.
great video!
Can you give us more detail on how to find out R in our database. Like in more detail how to filter and what exactly to look for. Maybe this can be calculated too with regards to calling 3bets (and 4bets in PLO)
Thanks
so i would call the "Lefort Formula" pot odds %/ EQ of hand = R% :)
so we can solve for EQ of hand = PO%/R%, which in your example leads to EQhand ~ 37%. so if a hand has at least 37% EQ vs 50% BUT open we can defend. (some of hands of course will vary with the exact range you assign to the BUT)
i wanted to use this method to look at defending BB vs 3bb open from the BUT opening 45% of hands as this is a little more common in low stakes
risk 2bb to win 2+3+1.5 so 2/(2+3+1.5) = .308, lets call this PO% for pot odds %
we will set R=60% and solve for equity needed to call(EQhand) v 45% BUT range
EQhand = PO/R
EQhand = .308/.6
EQhand = .513 or 51%
this lead to a very very tight defense range of only 15% of hands 55+, A4s+, KTs+, QJs, A7o+, KQo (of course some of these are 3Bs and i am ignoring 3B bluffs)
for example hands like KTo, JTs,
Equity Win Tie
BU 46.68% 45.03% 1.65% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 53s+, 43s, A2o+, K8o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
BB 53.32% 51.68% 1.65% { KTs }
Equity Win Tie
BU 49.26% 47.54% 1.73% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 53s+, 43s, A2o+, K8o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
BB 50.74% 49.01% 1.73% { KTo }
so even if we 3B TT+/AK(3.47%) and balance that with 4.5% 3B bluffs - overall we will be defending the BB 19.1% (11.13% CC + 7.97 3Bs)
1) did i make a math mistake or misunderstand something?
2) only defending the BB 19% vs 3bb BUT is a exploitable frequency right?
3) or is this just a function of not really knowing what my R might be? ie if i change R=.63 if will increase my defense range vs a 3bb range to quite a bit but then i would almost never fold to a MR
This isn't a big deal for most of our analyses because we're usually solving for R specifically, then extrapolating that to certain hands. However, in your example, instead of solving for R you plug in R = 60% and solve for ranges. I think this is a bit tricky because it doesn't take into account what your range is and how that reverts back to affecting R.
For example:
When BTN 3x, we're calling 2bb to win 4.5bb. Thus, PO = 2/6.5 = 0.308
R = PO / EQ
A hand like J8o (40th %ile, EQ = 40.8 vs. top ~50%:
R = 0.308 / 0.408 = 0.754 = 75.4%
Thus, as long as we realize at least 75.4% of our equity with J8o post-flop, we can flat profitably vs. 3x pre-flop. If our proceeding range is 100% (all hands), J8o lies towards the top/middle of our range and thus it may prove difficult to have R > 75.4% for this hand. However, if our proceeding range is 40% and J8o is at the bottom of our range, R > 75.4% for J8o becomes more possible.
So I think it's quite possible that defending J8o vs. a 3x is reasonable, even though R must be higher than we deemed necessary when we talked about defending vs. MR. When defending against MRs, because our overall range gets significantly wider by adding weaker hands, our expected R (for each specific hand) should decrease. Thus hands that need R > 70% can still be folds vs. MR, yet calls vs. 3x.
Also, what is the strategy post flop to assume that a 71% defense range will work. It seems in theory correct, but maybe in practice somehow different. What should our flop check-raise % look like, how do we avoid calling down when dominated. Also more importantly, shouldn't we be looking at a villain's continuation bet numbers and other flop statistics rather than just steal %?
I always hear you talking about how important is understand GTO to beat really good opponents.
My main question about this video is we are still concerned about our Minimum Defense Frequency´s when we have this huge defense range ? How can i do to not fold more than 40% of the time to a 3/4 bet in a Q72r board ? Are we flatting with all our A highs and K highs ? Or we just let him exploit us in those boards waiting for our made hand and his implode value ?
I´ll be very thanksfull if you can answer this.
Juan,
Did you get a good answer on your question?
Hi Sean, I liked this video. I have a question: how do you deal with your flatting range postflop? What are your Fold vs C-bet and WWSF stats on BB after calling BTN's steal? I mean it's pretty hard not to have Fold vs C-bet like 45%+, when your flatting range includes stuff like K5o, J6o, etc. This issue is important for me, given the fact that I prefer using a linear 3-betting strategy, something like top 12-16% vs BTN and thus my flatting range is more vulnerable.
Hi Sean, great series.
On the topic of defending vs 2.5x/3x opens in the BB, I did some playing around with Excel today. Against a 25% 2.5x CO open (I know, nit right), if I'm flatting ~30%, it looks like I have ~45.39% equity against his range.
Assume, for arguments sake, his range is something like:-
(22+,A2s+,K5s+,Q8s+,J8s+,T8s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,65s,54s,A9o+,KTo+,QJo)
And mine is something like:-
(99-22,AJs-A2s,KJs-K2s,Q8s+,J8s+,T8s+,97s+,87s,76s,65s,AJo-A5o,K8o+,QTo-Q8o,J9o+)
By my calculations, that means I need to realise 73.9% of my equity to break even. Against a 3x open I would need 80.62%.
The calculation I used is pretty simple, (Starting Stack - Call + (Pot x Equity x R)). Is that right?
Presumably that means that I should be using a MUCH tighter range against a 25% open and/or 2.5/3x opens?
This is more or less correct, but you have to account for the fact that as your range gets tighter your R will also increase. R is very much a moving target, so a hand with 55% equity vs villains opening range is not going to have 73% R. You either have to use DB analysis, or your intuition to form these conclusions (The former being my recommendation).
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.