Blind v BTN 3bet / 5bet ranges
Posted by robinfromthehood
Posted by
robinfromthehood
posted in
Low Stakes
Blind v BTN 3bet / 5bet ranges
Hi guys,
I'm looking to re-work my 3bet / 5bet for the SB and BB vs the BTN and I've got a questions on GTO vs exploitative, how wide my ranges should be etc etc. For reference: I currently play 25NL full ring.
To start, my current ranges: I built them without much knowledge of which hands make good 3b bluffs so they might suck.
For SBvBTN, I 3b AA-55,AKo-AJo,KQo,AKs-A8s,KQs (10.3%) and 5b AA-99,AKo,AKs-AQs,KQs (4.52%), so a linear 3b range. My thinking behind the linear range was that I'd just have a 3b range for the spot, no flatting range. I built the range by 1) taking my observation (from some herd analysis) of the reg population's 4b / stacking range for the spot, 2) making the worst hand(s) in that range around 0EV vs a 5b range and 3) adding some 3b bluffs in a quantity that avoids me being exploitable (e.g. I defend enough versus 4bets that villain can't 4bet any two cards profitable). I picked this method up from a video I'd watched and I'm not sure if I applied it correctly / fully understood it.
Some resources (such as Matthew Janda's Applications of NLHE) suggest 3betting a lot wider than this. For reference, his SBvBTN 3b range is AA-TT,55-33,AKo-ATo,KQo-KJo,AKs-ATs,A7s-A2s,KQs-KJs,K8s-K4s,Q9s-Q8s,J9s-J8s,T8s,98s-97s,87s-86s,76s-75s,65s-64s,54s, which is 18.4%. To defend that range to a 4b (by defending 40-50% of the time, as suggested in the book), I'd need to 5b > 7.36% of hands, which is a lot wider than my current range.
So, the question: If (like me) you're playing at the micro stakes and find that villains generally don't 4bet that much, does that mean that you're better off playing a more 'conservative' 3bet / 5bet range (like mine) where you're sure that all your 5bets will be +EV versus what you expect the villain's 4bet / stack off range to be? Or is the EV lost when you stack off with hands that perform poorly versus the villain's stackoff range more than compensated for by the extra folds you get / playing against a wide 3bet flatting range with the stronger range?
Cheers,
Rob
Loading 19 Comments...
"So, the question: If (like me) you're playing at the micro stakes and find that villains generally don't 4bet that much, does that mean that you're better off playing a more 'conservative' 3bet / 5bet range (lik(...)" your 5bet strat is definitly better than 5betting 7.4% of hands against ppl who might not even implementing a 4bet /folding range in their game.
So your thinking is that the EV we gain by 3betting extra hands isn't sufficient to make up for the EV we lose when we 5bet hands that aren't in great shape versus the villain's 4bet / stack range?
That's always been my gut feeling but what about all the times we don't get 4bet (which is the majority of the time if the guy has a narrow-ish 4bet range).
Say the guy has a (standard) super wide opening range for the BTN and we are 3betting the 18.4% range. If he's not 4betting that much, either 1) he fold to 3bets way too much and therefore we will be printing money because of the amount he folds or 2) he calls 3bets with a really wide range and whilst our 3bet range is wide, we still have by far the stronger range and will expect to have a good EV for our range postflop.
Seems to me like when you weigh up the (fairly rare) occurrence that we get it in with poor equity versus his range against the majority of the time where expect to make money versus his folds and calls, it might make sense to 3bet / 5bet the much wider range?
Of course that's assuming the villain has a wide BTN steal range
If he's nitty on the button, he won't be folding to 3bets as much or having to call with such a wide range.
In that instance I can see why it clearly makes sense to make an exploitative adjustment a 3bet / 5bet a narrower range.
Try playing K4s oop in 3bet pots and win more postflop then you would lose. I usually dont see that,
A big problem with your approach is that you try to defend against 4bets by 5betting. This is a big mistake and you should mostly defend by calling 4bets.
I don't like 5betting AQs, KQs they play better as calls vs 4bet.
You should flat most of your suited Broadway's, medium pocket pairs and premium suited connectors vs 4bets with these positions. A5s and A4s are great 5bet bluffs. JJ-KK and AK should be the majority of you 5beting range here. AA, TT, 99 and AQo can be played as flats or 5bets, but are often better as flats than 5bets.
That all makes sense - thanks for the response!
Janda does mention that it's a mistake to not flat 3bets / 4bets. I understand the logic - if we only 4bet or 5bet we have to defend with a wider range than if we also flat 3bets or 4bets.
BUT the big sticking point for me is getting started with playing 4bet pots OOP - it's not something that I've ever had to think about. Presumably with the low SPR it's pretty straightforward and I can run some scenarios on CREV but I'd be interested in watching in videos on the subject. Have just searched and found this (http://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/calling-4-bets-oop/) and this (http://www.runitonce.com/poker-training/videos/calling-vs-4bets-part-1/) which are both Elite Pro videos... anything from the Essential Pros that you know about?
It is pretty similar to playing UTG vs BTN 3bet OOP. There might be some content on that for essential.
Why do you think A4s is a better shove than AQs when AQs has more preflop EQ against villlains all-in calling range?
I don't think it is higher EV, but AQs is higher EV as flat than 5bet.
"I don't like 5betting AQs, KQs they play better as calls vs 4bet."
So you say that shoving a hand pre that has allroudn 30% EQ is a better play than shoving a hand that has 38% EQ when called (against a range of TT++ and AQoff++).
and aq has better blockers.
It is not like you need 5bet bluffs, but if you were to choose one A5s would be the best. There are no reason to turn AQs into a bluff here.
Just want to check why this is the case. Is it because we're assuming we can never 5b / fold (because we can't 5b small enough) and when talking about n-bet 'bluffs' we're just talking about the hands that we will fold if we get (n+1)-bet?
So you're basically saying that any hand in our 5b range isn't a bluff - it's just a hand picked to have good blockers that we would otherwise be folding?
I mean that it is not necessarily EV maximizing to 5bet bluff readless at micro stakes. It is part of optimal strategy and i think A5s-A2s would be used at a mixed frequency in this spot. Both blockers and equity when called matters. A5s can make flushes, straights and higher pairs and thus outdraw hands like KK at a higher frequency than most other hands.
Technically, 5betting AK is a bluff.
Your 3betting range is too tight and you can add in all the suited broadway hands and premium suited connectors like JTs, KTs, T9s, 54s etc. This will bring your range closer to the one Janda recommends. I think Janda's range is slightly too loose and I would remove some of the suited gapers like 64s, 75s and some of the offsuit hands. A7s and A6s can also be removed from the 3betting range.
Very nice posting as always :D
Indeed! Thanks for the tips Kalupso. Really interesting point on it being like an UTG v BTN 3bet spot - had never thought about the two spots as similar but I guess the ranges are super similar a lot of the time. Cheers!
+1 to Kalupso's post - very nicely done!
It should be more table dependent imo. If you are being 4 bet too often you either need to adjust by 5 betting lighter or by 3 betting stronger. In micros, villain is not 4 bet bluffing often enough to implement a light 5 betting range. The adjustment in the micros is to 3 bet tighter
Be the first to add a comment