I think general 4bet sizing is 2-2.5x

I agree to some extent, and that is one of the biggest reason I put this together.
But:

• I think 2x is way too small
• This is some thing I have been experimenting with; sizing up oop in certain spots, sizing down in certain spots.
• The cold 4-bet ( well... maybe it isn't a cold 4-bet because my blinds are in pot) I think it makes sense to size up were it is a squeeze situation. But in general I like adding a bb or two to the 2.5x oop.
  That is very debatable tho :D

I'm curious as to what your frequencies are

For sure

-Spot 1: I will be pretty tight vs EP open/ btn 3-bet; QQ+, AK, AQs, KQs, if faced a 5 bet would continue with QQ+ AKs, AKo (probably a very small % of time to none against a min 5-bet id imagine it would be interesting)

-Spot 2 About the same thing a little bit wider in both avenues, same concept of linearizing to some extent because we dont have much of a calling range.

-Spot 3 Something to this extent : [bluffs]A9s,A5s-A3s,KJs[bluffs],[value]AA-QQ,AKs[value]

do you always 4bet bluff in these situations with these hands??

No I wouldent say always with these hands, but these are in general the hands that I think play best in these spots.
Example spot 1
This is the top of my folding range here, so there the best hands which im not folding. Which also have strong blockers to his value range, and have good post flop play ability. Odv as ranges get wider these hands wont bet the top of my folding range.

As far as always 4-betting and,

And do you 4bet bluff just anyone or only against villains you have stat reads against?

I would say no to that too. But I do have a default game for unknowns ( which will change from what site im playing on, because of player pool reads). And I try to adjust very quickly.
Example If someone isn't three betting optimally I wont 4-bet as much. And vice versa.

and,

Also is 4betting a big dynamic in your games?

Absolutely!!!, With out it a astute player would be able to play perfect against us.
4-betting is great we need it in most cases to

• Get value
• Deny equity

I think in the micro's you can default to not 4- betting EP light, and keeping the bluffs to a minimum where ranges get wider. Until you have solid reads other wise, that doesn't mean not value 4-betting tho.
You should be able to pick up relatively quick on how your opponents are three betting you. So you can adjust your strategy to balance out your value bet's better.

Hey man thanks for participating, and if anything wasn't clear let me know. Like I said I tried to keep everything neat :D
Great questions tho man!!!

I think 2x is way too small
why niaga, i thought we discused it alrdy

doge, u a math niaga?

@ Gauc

doge, u a math niaga?

I try not to use bigotry words like that.

thats my niaga!

Thanks for the great response! :)

and maybe for board coverage with 76s-T9s.

Not really sure if board coverage applies in some of these oop spots, the one spot where it does im calling with plenty of Tx.
Not to mention when we start talking about < 9 high boards that dont really happen that often.
We should really be more concerned with connecting on boards that happen the most often.
More than 75% of the time we will see a T+ board. We see a 9 high less 25% of the time.
A high are odv the most common, because once the first A comes off nothing can beat it. , as when a 8 comes off the deck first each other card is very likely to be higher than it, and so on.

As for calling JJ-99 (in spot 1/2), I think in theory I would want to fold them. But if I snuck a set mine in with them I doubt anyone will be able to exploit me, and if they do I adjust :D

you should call also with QQ-AA

Not sure which spot your referring to here, I dont generally like doing it oop.....

Hero will have a calling range here, (AK/QQ that didnt 4-bet, JJ-77, AQs-ATs, KQs-T9s, stuff like that for most part)

Yah our oop three calling range(spot 3) will be capped, but its pretty strong and will make strong hands on different textures. So im not really concerned about it here.
I like doing it IP and against certain player types , but not in these spots.

These all look like interesting spots that I'd like to hear more about BUT I'd like to dig a bit deeper on spot 3 in particular.

Couple of questions:
1)
what factors determine whether you're 4betting AK/QQ? I tend to think that even if you're intending to 4bet say 50%, you're almost certainly going to actually tend to take one of the options (4bet or call) way more often than the other. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's hard to randomise your actions, right?

2)
I've experimented with not having a 4bet range at all in this spot. My thinking is that our value range is super narrow (AA-KK, sometimes QQ / AK is 34 combos max) and so we're not going to be able to include too many bluffs combos (as we don't want to be exploitable vs a 5bet, obviously).

I kinda think of the main benefit of having a 4betting range as being able to bluff hands that you'd otherwise fold. If we're not able to bluff with many combos, that's a limited benefit.

I think of the benefit of calling with our entire to be that we now have AA-KK in our flatting range, making our range stronger and providing 'protection' (not sure if that's the right word) for the rest of our flatting range vs the 3bet.

To me, the benefit of flatting > than the benefit of 4betting, which is why I've experimented with not having a 4bet range in that spot. However I definitely feel like I'm missing something - are there other reasons for having a 4bet range that I'm missing? I know you mentioned denying equity above... is that enough of a factor to swing it?

Also, on board coverage: I'm not really too familiar with the term. When you talk about 'covering' a board you mean that we have hands in our range that connect (strongly) with that board, right? So maximising our board coverage is maximising the % of boards that our range can connect strongly with?

If you guys have any videos / resources on board coverage that you've found useful I'd love to learn some more

Hey Robin Hood ! :D

These all look like interesting spots that I'd like to hear more about BUT I'd like to dig a bit deeper on spot 3 in particular.
1)

It is tough to randomize your action,
One way you could randomize a 50% weigth would be too 4-bet hearts and diamond suits, call clubs or spades.
Another way, a little more time consuming. Would be to use a RNG ( random number generator
RNG
I prefer to do it by feel and table dynamic, honestly allot of the time we put these ranges together as models. So that wont always be perfect and we will be deviating allot from our set strategy.

2)

That is why we build balanced 4- betting ranges. A big part of 4-betting is getting value and denying equity. But I see micro players not doing this because they are afraid of variance. Just going to highlight a couple spots from earlier in the conversation.

With out it a astute player would be able to play perfect against us.
4-betting is great we need it in most cases to
Get value
Deny equity

Hope this helped, feel free to ask anymore question if it didnt!!

dddog

If you guys have any videos / resources on board coverage that you've found useful I'd love to learn some more

Pm sent

Thanks for taking the time to reply dddog, much appreciated!

It is tough to randomize your action,
One way you could randomize a 50% weigth would be too 4-bet hearts and diamond suits, call clubs or spades.
Another way, a little more time consuming. Would be to use a RNG ( random number generator
RNG
I prefer to do it by feel and table dynamic, honestly allot of the time we put these ranges together as models. So that wont always be perfect and we will be deviating allot from our set strategy.

I've actually tried your first suggestion (basing your action on suits). I found it was a bit too much of strain on my (already limited) mental capacity when deciding on a line! Particularly when you're talking about an offsuit hand and picking a combo of two suits...

I've read somewhere about basing the decision on the second hand on your watch, which is kinda a cool idea (and would be relatively easy to apply, particularly if you used your PC clock instead of your watch...)

But yeah it's kinda minor thing given our ranges are going to be pretty fluid anyway, just interesting to think about.

With out it a astute player would be able to play perfect against us.
4-betting is great we need it in most cases to
Get value
Deny equity

Yeah those two reasons are certainly reasonable to me. I think what get's interesting is when you quantify the denying equity part. So, for instance, versus a guy who 3bets X% and has Y% of that range as bluffs (that fold to our 4bet), let's assume we only ever flat, never 4bet. How often does his Y% of bluffs connect with the board enough to get to showdown?

Although I guess we're not just talking about getting to showdown - by just flatting we give him the opportunity to barrel with hands that don't even connect with the board that well and sometimes get us to fold better hands...

I guess the more I think about it, the more that there seems there's probably a lot of value in denying the villain equity. It would be really interesting to try and quantify it... I guess you could do something as simple as seeing what % of the time his 3bet bluff range makes top pair + ?

The value of denying equity will increase as the villain's 3bet bluffing frequency increases. So I guess against guys who we believe to be 3betting us a lot in the spot it's even more important to have a 4betting range and be denying equity?

About randomization, don't remember who suggested it here but is a easy one.

You play 4 tables? You do something on the first 2 and another thing on your other two : 50% 50%, 25% 75% is also possible doing 1 - 3 :)

@ Robin Hood

Are there any good videos on Runitonce that deal with CREV modelling? I'm a maths nerd so I love that stuff.

First I would watch all the videos in the online video manual,
PG On Demand: Analyzing 3-Bet Pots OOP Phil Galfond Using Crev
Studying Poker with CREV Jo Smailys
Intro to CardRunnersEV James Hudson
Hand and CREV Review James Hudson
All these are essential videos, not too familiar with elite, I know the Kick Howard videos has some CREV in it and Sauce has a couple as well.
Good luck
Hope this was of some help too you :D
dddog

Poďakovanie
Dddog

Gaucen si tak pýcha pýcha pýcha
lízať lízať lízať

Thanks meezely you are so sweet!!!, post hands ask questions anytime!!!!

I'd be interested to hear whether the fact we're OOP to both villains in hand 1, OOP to PFR but IP to 3bettor in hand 2 makes a difference. Are you at all tempted to 4bet smaller in hand 2 because the most likely caller (the 3bettor) is OOP to us?

Hey I have a question. since these 4bets are huge, would you do the same with your value hands? Because I guess this sizing suggest you want your villains to either shove or fold, so this is kind of like 4bet inducing? Do you think big sizing is good for 4bet inducing? Do you ever want to 4bet smaller to possibly get a call from villains sometimes or do you always 4bet to put your villains in a shove/fold spot?

I dont adjust sizing for hand strength,
You should look a spot 3
Honestly I dont think spot two is that

huge

Relative to the action at the table,
It is a squeeze spot and its really only 5bb bigger than a 2.5x.
a 2.5x would give villain (3bettor) aprox 3.6:1
im giving him closer to 3.1:1 ( could be wrong I did this real quick in head)
But I like that :D

Same thing is going on in hand 1.

Question for you??
Do you size up in a 3-bet squeeze spot vs a regular three-bet spot??

Are you at all tempted to 4bet smaller in hand 2 because the most likely caller (the 3bettor) is OOP to us?

Not really trying to get looked up here, going for FE in this spot close to bottom of my 4-betting range....

Ah, but overall when you 4bet, do you try to 4bet induce or do you 4bet and leave room for your opponent to call/5bet? I size up in a 3bet squeeze spot but I don't make it so I put my opponents in a shove/fold spot more often then not. Like generally if someone raises 3bb and theres 1 caller, Ill make it around 12bb~

I think the hands out hero chose to 4bet bluff are strong enough to go post flop. But overall I feel our hero felt that if he sized up his 4bets, it creates more FE making a big 4bet better in these spots. He might have gotten away with smaller 4bets however I feel sizing up for more FE is fine.

we dont agree about calling :oP

This spot I would size up, SQ spot, OOP, against 2 somewhat aggressive opponents. BTN is a nit, but looks like he is playing three bet or fold.
Smash em meez!!!

Meez get back in game !!!

Oh no, this almost got missed :D
I like this very nice, could size down a little to try to get UTG to come aboard. Standard here is 2.5x imo.
But for the most part this looks good.

Thank you again you are best much <3

Thanks again for participating!

I like your sizing, what do you think of CO call?
I am always sizing up a bit in squeeze spots OOP
I love his turn play :D
Nh

I don't like CO call. I think he is risking way too much versus reward. CO has risked 25% of his stack but won't hit two pair or better more than a tiny percentage of the time and his one pairs are always worse than mine. (Once button calls 4B he should be stacking off so he really should either shove pre-flop or fold IMO).

I don't like CO's turn play unless he is me as he gifted me his stack. He should have bet the flop and shoved over a re-raise when I checked the flop, not shoved the turn after flop checks through which just looks like what he had (pair+draw with only one card to come so low percent winning).

You are the man!

u r d Doge!!