Constructing A "Dis-Continuous" Three-Betting Range
Posted by AF3
Posted by
AF3
posted in
Mid Stakes
Constructing A "Dis-Continuous" Three-Betting Range
There seem to be pre-flop situations in which we are priced in to call with so many hands that the following ends up happening:
If we bluff the best hands that are not profitable to call, then our 3-bet bluffs become so weak that they have a highly diminished sense of post-flop playability.
For example, suppose we are defending the BB versus a BTN minraise with the following range:
Any Two SuitedAny Two Connected Down To 56o
Any One-Gap Combination Down To 68o
99-22
Any Ace
Any King
Any Queen
J7o+
T7o+
This is 71% of hands. If we constructing the maximally polarized 3-betting range by 3-betting our absolute best hands and then adding the "best hands that are not good enough to call" to construct our bluffing range, then we end up 3-betting hands like J6o. So, is there some group of hands (call it B) in the middle of our calling range that we should be 3-betting because the hands slightly worse than B are just too bad to raise and will get us owned on too many flops? In other words, should we 3-bet 79s but call 92s because we're priced in to continue with both of these hands, but we should be using our highest equity "bluffs" against the BTN calling range when we construct the non-value part of our 3-betting range?
Can anybody argue this on some kind of solid ground besides experience and practice?
Lefort (coach on here) seems to think that a 3-betting range which includes hands like with little playability will let us maximize our VPIP, but I question whether or not we're maximizing our VPIP at the expense of our EV if we go include these hands with super non-robust equity?
Loading 0 Comments...
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.
This thread has been locked. No further comments can be added.