Overfolding to 3 Bets in Fast Fold Games?
Posted by SpankoPita22
Posted by
SpankoPita22
posted in
Low Stakes
Overfolding to 3 Bets in Fast Fold Games?
Hi guys. I was wondering if there is any merit in overfolding to 3 bets in anonymous fast fold games and rooms where huds aren't allowed (ie: GG rush and cash)? Apart from losing some board coverage, would this theoretically maximize EV assuming the population has ideal 3 bet frequencies?
Loading 13 Comments...
So in general, the counterstrategy A that is going to make most money against a particular other strategy B is called Maximally Exploitative Strategy (MES). When your opponent has an "ideal 3 bet frequency" we can translate this into him playing the equilibrium strategy. Against the equilibrium strategy, the MES that is maximally exploiting your opponent is responding with the equilibrium strategy as well. If your opponent plays idealy, then any deviation from the equilibrium by definition loses you EV. So no, overfolding would not maximize EV versus an ideal 3-bet frequency.
If your opponent has an ideal 3-bet frequency, maximal exploitation is reached with playing the equilibrium as well. If your opponent is 3-betting too tight, the MES will overfold. If your opponent is 3-betting too loose, the MES will overcall and 4-bet more than an equilibrium response would do.
The substantive reason why you're not maximizing EV by overfolding is that you are giving up your open raise too often I guess. Failing to stack the 3-bettors overpairs on low boards is another reason I think
So there is a slight misconception in your statement. If your opponent plays ideally (nash) any deviation from your own nash strategy does not necessarily lose you EV. Hence why you can get 0 EV mixed hands. It does however open you up to being exploited if your opponent were to change their strategy. If you could guarantee that your opponent continued to play nash you could throw away all of your 0 EV hands.
Hence why it's "0 EV so do what you like" isn't 100% true. As it's only 0EV vs a nash strategy. Your opponent could deliberately (or accidentally) exploit you if you are not getting the mixes right. That said it probably doesn't make a huge difference
Holonomy
I see a misconception in this: "If you could guarantee that your opponent continued to play nash you could throw away all of your 0 EV hands."
This is not correct. The reason why some hands become 0EV is due to the fact that they win/loose kind of the same amount vs several regions of Villains range. So basically folding them 100% vs nash would be a mistake because Villain would gain value with his bluffs without deviating from nash.
Still right that the concrete mix will not have huge impact on the EV though....
I think it is correct. If the hands are 0 EV vs fixed opponent strat whether you call or fold them then there is no way that your opponent can gain EV when you fold rather than call them. Your opponent would gain value on his bluffs but would lose the equivalent amount on his value hands (as your range is now stronger).
If he realised what you were doing he could bluff more often, still losing the same on value but gaining more on his bluffs (which he now has more of) and now would make more money.
Consider a nuts or nothing game where opponent has 50% bluffs 50% nuts.
Betting 1 unit into a 1 unit pot the nash strat is to give up half bluffs and bet all nuts and 50% bluffs.
As caller (with mid) I have 0 EV vs this on a call. And 0 EV when I fold.
My opponent's strat EV is 1 unit no matter what I do. If I call he makes 2 units 2/3 of the time when I he has value and loses 1 unit 1/3 of the time when he bluffs (4/3 - 1/3 = 1). If i fold he gets 1 unit.
Note that this is true whether I call 0%, 50% or 100%. The nash strat for me is to call 50% of the time so that his bluffs have 0 EV. If I deviate from this he makes no more money - unless he changes his strat too. If I call 100% he now loses on bluffs but makes on value. If I call 0% he profits on bluffs - but the key is he loses on value (as he never get the additional unit).
The point is if I deviate he can change his strat to make more money, not that nash auto profits vs any change whatsoever. There are changes (in other games) where nash will profit vs a change in strategy but the point is not all - and if a strategy is mixed it doesn't matter which you do if (and this is a big if) if your opponent's strat remains constant.
FWIW I do think getting mixes correct is important though as you could be accidentally exploited by an opponent (non nash) strategy but in this instance the Q was about an "ideal" opponent which I took to mean nash.
That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. My thinking was to fold all the 0ev mixed fold hands since I assumed those are there to prevent being exploitable via light 3 bet. That combined with people's imperfect postflop game had me thinking we could gain EV postflop. Is this a valid though process or are we still losing to an ideal preflop strategy in that case?
Hmm so maybe someone else might have a more informed opinion on this but I don't think we can do this. If we fold all hands that are mixing we reduce our overall continuing frequency quite substantially.
If you nevertheless want to choose between 0EV hands I would then give priority to those that unblock bluffs. E.g. when facing a 3-bet CO vs. BU, let's say both 33 and 66 are mixing. However 33 might be a better candidate to defend than 66, as 33 unblocks 76s/65s whereas 66 blocks these...
You have to dive into these theory question for the answer:
Does folding 0 ev mixed hands = overfolding vs optimal 3betting?
If they are 0 ev hands, it shouldn't matter if you fold or 3bet, since there is no ev gain/loss?
Or are you indeed overfolding when you always fold that 65s that should be 3bet 25% of the time, leaving your range with 1 less combo of hands on that certain board? Is your opponent now able to exploit you since you have deviated from optimal defense? Or does it not matter?
I am personally in the camp of "it doesnt matter its 0 ev so do whatever you want", but I can easily see the arguments for the other side. The more devote and faith you have in GTO, the more you can handle the 0 ev stuff, but as mere humans, these are the toughest spots to navigate in poker and there is no shame in avoiding them.
Now in fast fold, you can easily convince yourself with your multi tabling that you need to go next hand fast so ditch all 0 ev hands to get to +ev hand spots.
Do you feel that you are getting 3b more often by IP players? Or more often from the blinds?
There are a few things you can do to combat getting 3b by IP players. #1 is simply open tighter from UTG/MP (like 13/15 or 14/16, respectively) and/or you can simply size down to minimum (slashes your loss range from -300 or -250bb/100 to -200bb/100 when you have to fold). I would recommend a combination of the two. Opening small also lets you call 3b more often and you are typically in a higher SPR situation. Also, I completely ditched the SC's from my range. They play poorly in both 3b and called pots. IP is calling a ton and it sucks getting to flops with 87s when they are flatting 99/88/77 so much. I essentially open all broadways, pairs and Suited Ax from MP and I cut some of the fat from UTG. Yes, this is wider than the 13-14/15-16 range, but it has some things going for it. We flop better pairs vs their IP calling range and we block their 3 betting range with stuff like KQ/KJ (less KK/QQ/JJ) in their range.
Below are some numbers from Ignition (another anonymous site) for IP calls, overall 3b and IP/OOP 3b %'s. I am going to venture to guess they are going to be similar to GG. Just remember, in general you are not getting exploited by 3 betting when the 3b ranges are this tight.
Anonymous Pool 3b/Call Stats
Thanks for the insight guys. These are all very good thoughts that are getting me to see the topic from a different angle. I especially think calling with hands that unblock bluffs is an interesting idea worth trying.
Interesting information. Thank you.
Be the first to add a comment