FTGU episode 17 Facing 3bets
Posted by botb
Posted by
botb
posted in
From The Ground Up
FTGU episode 17 Facing 3bets
Currently working my way back up at 5NL zoom and my biggest leak so far is over reacting to 3bets in either defending way too much (4bets+ caloling) or giving way too much credit.
I went back to basics and rewatched episode 17 and while i fully understand the approach, how do I incorporate villains 3bet frequency into the methodology that is used in this video?
For example: If a villain is 3betting 3% am I still going to be defending (let's assume sizing is the same 3.5x i believe he used in the video) roughly 40% of my opening range as opposed to a villain whose 3 betting 6% etc.
I've read and spent hours searching up this topic and I've seen that some suggestions are if a villain is 3betting so low, just exploitative fold, but then my counter to that is where do you draw the line? Also since this is zoom 5NL most of the time villains 3 betting tendencies aren't properly known.
Loading 3 Comments...
I think it has more to do with how to deal with players who have a 3-betting range that extends into the range where they are 3-betting light to some degree and working to make their strategy 0EV. Someone who is 3-betting 3% isn't the betting light at all, the range is JJ+ and AK and as such is exploitable by folding most hands to a 3-bet and calling with the ones that have huge implied odds against an overpair or TPTK, Against players that have a light 3-betting range though, we want to defend with enough of our range that their fold equity isn't enough to be +EV for the amount they are betting. The goal here is not to exploit their 3-betting as that would open us up to being exploited back, but to instead to create a situation where 3-betting light isn't increasing their profit in and of itself. Once we eliminate the profit gained from fold equity all Villain has left is playing the hands postflop, where they are OOP with marginal hands in a 3-bet pot, which essentially shifts the advantage over to us assuming a reasonable skill parity between you and Villain. Note that I am talking about when we are opening the pot and then getting 3-bet from the blinds, not being 3-bet light by someone in position. From what I have seen in some of the videos I have been watching here is that in at the stakes the audience for this video would be playing, the rake coming out of the pot once we see a flop kills any EV that would have been gained by calling and fighting post-flop for the pot. A 4-bet/fold strategy seems to be what is considered best at the moment in small stakes raked games.
Yes, you make some very good points. I definitely agree that a 4bet/fold strategy is way superior at these high rake settings. However, i still have trouble where to draw that line 3%3bet range to a 6%.
3% = JJ,QQ,KK,AA, AKo,AKs 40 combos
4%= same as above plus AQo AQs 56 combos
6%= same as above + AJ suited TT,99 84 combos.
I think I can say without a doubt 3% is not a "light" 3bet range.
I can also say without a doubt 4%.
6% I can say we do need to start playing back at, but let's say I was explaining this to a complete beginner. How do I show this mathematically or rationally?
Their 3-bet stat shouldn't be your primary way of determining what to do. To use it properly you need to figure out what Villain is trying to accomplish by 3-betting in the situations where it is happening, and preferably have some notes on what some of the hole cards they did it with are.
Like all bets and raises in poker, Villain is doing it for either value or fold equity/protection. Which of these two is the goal will make a difference in what hands Villain is doing it with and what we need to be doing in response.
If Villain is 3-betting 6% for value we treat it just like we would do if they were raising the top 3% of hands, but make adjustments post-flop to account for the way their expanded range interacts with the board (more likely to have bare overcards, more likely to have middle pair, etc). From their point of view, these guys aren't bluffing. They legtimately think that 99 and AJs are worth building the pot before the flop and our fold equity is corresponding low (it's there, but surprisingly less of the time than we would think) so we aren't 4-betting for fold equity. We raise sufficiently better hands for value, we call IP with hands that are ahead of their 3-betting range or hands like PPs and SCs with nice implied odds.
If Villain is 3-betting 6% and the goal is to capitalize on fold equity, we have to deal with things differently. First of all, that 6% is probably not composed of 99+, AJs+, AQo+ and instead it may be polarized, something more like JJ+,AKs,T8s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,65s,54s,AKo where the premium cards are balanced by well chosen bluffs. Villain's primary goal is to steal our raise outright, or if they can't do that to make post-flop difficult often enough to turn a profit. These are the players that we are playing back in some fashion against. The goal, from what I am gathering currently, is that the goal is to take action in a way that makes the EV of Villain 3-betting light 0 so they are indifferent to adding more bluffs to their strategy. In position, we are calling with enough frequency that a 3-bet of whatever size Villain uses is 0EV. OOP I assume but am not certain that we tighten up our opening range enough that between our premium hands (QQ+, AK) and our other opens we can 4-bet enough or our opening range to hit our MDF. I'm not 100% sure about how we handle OOP so hopefully somebody with some actual expertise will chime in here. It seems that what I am suggesting would work fine for UTG and HJ but maybe not be the best if we are CO vs. someone who likes to target our opens.
The main takeaway here should be that the actual percentage Villain 3-bets isn't the information that matters, what matters is what Villain is trying to accomplish. The 3-bet stat is just what we use to help figure out what range Villain is trying to achieve his goal with.
Be the first to add a comment