About linear range and stack depth
Posted by Jiibi
Posted by
Jiibi
posted in
Mid Stakes
About linear range and stack depth
Hi guys, I was wondering about a situation where you're in BU vs a CO open 200bb deep. I find 1 pros and 1 cons for 3-betting a linear range : it makes the pot bigger IP but it reduces the SPR.
I think it's pretty clear that for a hand like 56s we preferred to call for having the higher SPR possible. And for a hand like AQo we preferred to 3b/call for putting more money into the pot in position.
But for hands like JTs or KJs, it's good to have a high SPR but it's also nice to make the pot bigger. So my question is : the more the stack depth grows, the more we should be 3-betting hands like KJs or JTs ?
Loading 9 Comments...
I think that once you're 200bbs deep 3betting most of your range is good in that spot (so linear-ish). I'd throw in 65s too, though probably not AQo.
Well- whats your opponent calling with? Whats he 4bting you with?
Also, AQo is good at making top pair, 56s is good to go for straights and flushes- which would you rather have if 400 bb's is going in?
400 bb's aren't going in in every pot I play and if it were, I´d much prefer AQo.
When stacks get deeper I would most likely 3b AQo less frequently. Since it's def enough good to call pre, if someone got bigger samples it would be cool to see the difference in between in ev between calling and 3b AQo BU vs CO 200bb deep. I'm just guessing but to me it seems kinda marginal, with that said if CO were a weaker player or w/e I would 3b a lot for sure. But vs a good player I would 3b it less.
65s is probably not good enough to call pre, we get nice board coverage if we 3b pre. And I guess it's quite nice to call 4b with it if the price is right etc.
I think I like some mixed strategy with AQo between 3b and calling, and with 65s I would 3b or fold some %.
Why would playing deep have such big influence in changing our strategy vs reasonable Co opening range ?
AQ is still far ahead of his range and plays well vs wider 4betting range ip.I might be missing something but just seems so nitty not to 3b it, should show immediate profit.
Also not sure what you`ll achieve by playing "mixed strategy" ?
When you're 200 deep you're not aiming to make plays that get a few bb from the other 200bb stack- you're aiming at his whole stack. In other words, plays that make an 'immediate profit' as you mean it here, are much less +ev than changing the way you play certain hands in order to 'build' a hand to make it strong enough to stack-off deep. Again, that's why I mentioned above that AQo is good at making tp and thats why AQs is SO much more valuable than its offsuit counterpart- does that make sense?
Pick 47s or some other hand to make an 'immediate profit'- dont pick hands that you can build into a real stacking hand.
I don't know, i dont play deep. Ofc AQ is going to show profit, it will no matter what since it's the top range. I just don't think it will make that much of a difference if we got 7.5bb in the middle or like 20bb in the middle. But like I said, I'm not sure that's why I asked for results.
Mixed strategy gets us better board coverage if we want to 3b certain percentages. Wouldn't it be better to 3b our suited Ax like ATs+, A2s-A5s and 3b like AKo only since we can still gii in pre if we want to?
i would rather have a pretty polarized range : 3bet hands that can play for stacks, and add hands that are too poor to call (like offsuit Aces, some suited A), and some suited connectors, which can call open too, but are pretty good to call a 4bet as well (like 67s,78s). that way you will be tough to play against, opponent will have tough time doing both (calling oop and 4beting you alot). Also, you will not have domination problems when calling a 4bet or when your 3bet gets called. I also think 3beting/calling 4bet with AQoff is a suicide against aggresive player :)
Like Wisedroid said in 1st post, depends on villains tendencies, but yeah i agree with polarized being better as default strategy vs stronger regs.
I still play at games where majority of plrs are either not defending enough (by 4b or flat), or are calling too many dominated hands and playing face up fit or fold postflop oop, so probably was biased on this.
Be the first to add a comment