3-bet pots: Behavior of the 3-bettor on 3-to-flush boards
Posted by whiteshark
Posted by
whiteshark
posted in
Low Stakes
3-bet pots: Behavior of the 3-bettor on 3-to-flush boards
Background:
I'm currently studying 3-bet pots a bit more in depth. Specifically, I'm interested in the behavior of the 3-bettor on game changer or wet turns, e.g. the turn bringing in the third flush card to a two-tone flop.
The general pattern is clear: The 3-bettor has a high concentration of high card hands and nutted holdings with SDV that either prefer more high cards or static board runouts (blanks) that preseve the 3-bettors range advantage. The PFC has a higher concentration of middling cards and draws. This range prefers game changer and drawy turns that equalize the 3-bettor's nutted overpair- and top pair-type hands. On three-to-flush turns, the 3-bettor resorts to 70%-80% checking on most boards.
What I can make sense of:
I aim at understanding which hands we bet nevertheless as the 3-bettor, although overall, we will have a high checking frequency of course. Let's have a look at these two boards (SB vs. CO, ONLY FLUSHES ARE COLORED):
On the AT6 2 board, the broadway flushes are checking and the low flushes are betting more frequently. On the 852 3 board, this pattern is reversed. My take on this would be the following: We want to bet those flushes that unblock the PFC's continuing range from which we can extract value and check those flushes that block the continuing range. On AT6 2, broadway flushes block hands like AK/AQ/AJ that we want to extract value from and hence check, while 76/65 unblock these and bet. On 853 2, it's actually the lower flushes (JT/T9) that block the PFC's continuing range (JJ, TT, 99, T8, 98). Hence these check and broadway flushes bet. This seems perfectly sensible, at least to me.
What I cannot make sense of:
Enter the QQ5 2 board. The main hands that would call us off here are probably Qx, that is AQ/KQ/QJ/QT. Using the reasoning from above, those flushes that block these hands should predominantly check (AK, AJ, AT, KJ), those flushes that unblock these hands should predominantly bet (T9, 76). However, the solver output is exactly reversed and I fail to make sense of this or come up with a general logic that will help me determine my betting patterns on all three boards. Help?
Loading 5 Comments...
What solver is this?
If I had a better understanding I would try to contribute, but my solver experience is lacking. I want to purchase one (if that is necessary) and get familiar with what you are doing here so that I may contribute.
The general take of people is that a solver is not necessary to beat micro/low stakes. I use one either way because I learn a lot (!) from it and above all it's just fun, makes studying way easier for me.
The screenshots are from the GTO+ software. One of the cheapest options out there that allows you to run aggregation reports for a much cheaper price than Pio does.
When inputting the same parameters, results of GTO+ and Pio are the same.
Is it because that it becomes more likely that the opponent is continuing with a flush or a set because two QQ are on the board. If we have a low flush then the lower portion of the continuing range is a Q and it is semi blocked so we are more likely to be crushed and this would make the opposite true when we have the nut flush, and the board is blocking the queen combos then it makes it more likely our villain at least isnt continuing with a nut flush.
Just a thought not sure if i am on target or not.
My phone is being a pain, but i will try to be more clear. If the high cards are paired and we have a low flush on this board our opponent is likely continuing with higher flushes and raising nut flush draws because the board is effectively blocking the Q to an extent it makes the suited hands more likely.
If we have the nut flush with AX and villain continues the QQ board still effectively blocks the queens enough that it makes it more likely villain continues with the second nut flush.
So on a paired high card where a flush comes it becomes more about whose flush is higher than extracting value from top pair as they aren’t as likely to have the Q.
Be the first to add a comment