Is it a good idea to have predefined 3bet and 4bet ranges for each position?
Posted by HodorIsKing
Posted by
HodorIsKing
posted in
Low Stakes
Is it a good idea to have predefined 3bet and 4bet ranges for each position?
I've read about people having static preflop 3-betting and 4-betting ranges for each position. I myself do not use such ranges, which might be a problem as I find myself being uncertain whether certain hands should be 3-bet, calls or folds during sessions. It is the same if I am faced with a 3b. I find that I am often "guessing" about calling, 4betting or folding. I frequently make these decisions based on how I'm feeling during a session instead of making them because I'm sure it's the correct play. This can lead to unnecessary mistakes and timeouts. If you are using defined ranges, how do you decide what hands to include in that range? Do you have a target for the number of combos you are 3-betting or calling? Also, do you use the same ranges against different opponents or do you make adjustments? My goal is to make a document which will include my ranges for each position (BTNvUTG, BBvSB, BBvBTN, etc). I wanted to ask if this sounds like a good idea.
Loading 9 Comments...
Yes that absolutely sounds like a good idea! You mention all the reasons why in your own post ;)
You don't need to make a document btw, you can just save the ranges to equilab or similar programs. Ofc you can always deviate form your core ranges to exploit someone who folds or calls way too much but it's important to have a starting point. Not 100% sure but I think Steve Paul made some Essential vids on how to construct ranges, you might wanna check them out to get started.
Yeah you should definitely have an idea how your ranges should look like in certain spots which is, generally speaking, alot easier preflop. This includes opening-ranges as well as 3-b/4-b-ranges, but this does not mean that you strictly have to follow them but rather use it as a starting-point.
So you might want to, let's say, 3-b ~17% BBvSB as a default. But that number will obv rise or fall depending on the tendencies of the SB.
There's a thread you might be interested in:
Preflop-ranges
Does anyone have any good resources on constructing 3b and 4b ranges? I have been searching like crazy and finding little recently. Mostly people say "it depends" which I appreciate and understand but quite often we are against villains we have little or no info on and surely we must have some sort of rough baseline we use?
Constructing strong 3/4/5-betting ranges is very much a mathematical exercise. When your opponent's opening range is known, and we ignore players behind us, our best 3-betting range can be computed.
There are two ways to go about it:
Assume your opponent has some flaws in his 3B defence, and make a strategy that maximally exploits those.
Assume your opponent defends perfectly and will adapt to any mistakes you make. Then you end up with a Nash equilibrium strategy.
The gist of it is that playing by "feel" and guessing in the moment is not a good approach. A strong 3/4/5-bet strategy can always be computed, given some assumptions about your opponent's opening range (which is the most important factor when deciding how wide you can 3B) and his ways of play after you 3-bet.
To actually compute this stuff, you need a pre flop solver like Pio Edge. That doesn't mean you need to go down that road, but what I am telling you is that there is a method to this thing, and that it's possible to do much better than guessing. :-)
At the very least you should be explicit about the 3/4/5-bet ranges you use and take the time to write down your approach. The reason is that any strategy that you are explicit about can be corrected if it's weak. If you don't know your own strategies, it's difficult to correct flaws. Leaks have a way of becoming visible once you make it clear to yourself what you are actually doing.
Practically, if you want to do it the pen-and-paper way, make sure that you are not overfolding anywhere. For example, let's say you have constructed a polarized 3B range (planning to jam/fold vs a 4B) and you 8bb it vs a 2.5bb open. You should not fold more than ~60% against a 2.5x (20bb) 4B (unless your are exploiting opponent tightness).
The reason is that your opponent is investing 17.5bb more with his 4B to win the 2.5 + 8 + 1.5 = 12bb in the pot. The break-even threshold for his 4B bluffs is when you fold 17.5/(17.5 + 12) = 59% of the time. This percentage follows from simple pot odds mathematics and is a good way to balance your value/bluff ratio to not be obviously exploitable.
To compute truly strong 3/4/5-bet strategies (that choose your range perfectly with post flop playability in mind, so that you do well when your 3-bet gets called) you need a solver, but you can get the big things right by using a pot-odds based approach like above and making some intelligent choices of value hands and bluffs.
GL!
@ 6seven8:
I meant maximally. As in, doing a model study of a flawed opponent, when we are interested in computing the best possible 3B range against him. When we are making an opponent model, we always know exactly how our opponent plays, that's the nature of a model.
Whether we want to deploy that (possibly extreme) strategy in-game is another question. Our reads can be far off, and having players behind us complicates matters. How they will react is something we need to factor in. If you are playing small stakes zoom, you can assume they won't get in your way much. In tough mid-stakes games, they will.
But knowing what a maximally exploitative strategy is against an opponent model will serve as a starting point for a more moderately exploitative one. It's easier to go for soft exploitation when you know what leaks you are trying to punish and what the hardest punishment is.
If the goal is to compute good defaults, taking player pool tendencies and rake into account is the way to go. You can start with a Nash equilibrium range. Then, if the pool is overly cally, nudge yourself more linear, etc. With high rake, lines that avoid seeing flops get rewarded, so you might want to go with wide linear 3B ranges in that case (also because high rake = small stakes = they play poorly in 3B pots) and skip the flatting range altogether (except in BB).
When doing modelling work, Pio is like a research laboratory, you can do any experiment you want. Nothing will explode. :-)
Agreed, "minimally exploitative" is the best way to describe that modelling process.
Let me be the first to hit the Like Button on that post from Zen Fish, Great write up.
i personally have a similar approach but I do not go by raiser's position. I go by there RFI.
This is very similar kind of, but you will come across players who can be good laggy players and open 25%+ from UTG.. or open 40% from MP. And on the other side of that you will also come across players who open 12% from the CO.
I think basing your 3B strat off of RFI is a little more easier and it can also give u a solid foundation on how to deal with certain player types as well.
Be the first to add a comment