Rake Aware - is 3betting really saving rake vs. regs?
Posted by Lewis Harkes
Posted by
Lewis Harkes
posted in
Low Stakes
Rake Aware - is 3betting really saving rake vs. regs?
So I see and hear a lot of comments that 3betting is the default in a high rake environment.
BUT given that most players can download pretty optimal ranges relatively easily, and these ranges advocate for defending 50% of the range, I am a bit confused on how it is actually saving us $$.
Three points / assumptions to make:
1) I only want to discuss the rake-specific implications, and not benefits for range of 3betting mediocre hands in position.
2) blinds are folding in this example but assuming in general they're not squeezing too often and it doesn't hurt us too much (either not super wide given utg raise or we've developed some sort of anti-squeeze defense to exploit over enthusiasm).
3) when we 3b, I'm assuming our opponent would have a call or fold strategy. Obviously not balanced but I am assuming the "rake benefits" of 4bets (i.e. we don't pay any rake when we fold) are offset by the extra rake when we defend our 3b about 50% of the time etc.
A bit of math:
Option A: utg raises to 2.2xbb, hero in BU calls 2.2bb, sb folds; bb folds. Pot is 5.9bb, rake is 5%, or 0.295bb.
Option B (i): utg raises to 2.2xbb, hero in BU raises to 7.5bb, sb folds; bb folds, utg calls. Pot is 16.5bb, rake is 5%, or 0.825bb
Option B (ii):utg raises to 2.2xbb, hero in BU raises to 7.5bb, sb folds; bb folds, utg folds. Rake is 0%, or 0.0bb.
According to this math, is utg flatted 3b half the time, we'd be saving about 30% of the rake bill preflop --> 0.295/(0.825*.5)=71.5%.
Utg would need to fold to 3b 65% of the time for the rake effects to break even, and this doesn't get into the effects of a single bet on flop etc. This fold to 3b seems too high in today's game.
So other than the times sb/bb can squeeze, what am I missing here about the anti-rake strategy?
Loading 18 Comments...
Don't we have to also account for the times he RFI/Fold UTG and we win the pot uncontested?
Hey Hawks!
Yes, from a rake perspective, i was accounting for this in option B(ii). Basically i'm saying: if some of the time we play a 16.5 bb pot and some of the time we play a ~6bb pot, we need to bet avoiding the bigger pot a lot more often.
I'm not overly concerned from an equity perspective, as I was trying to look only at the rake situation. But, given the hands are mediocre and either we have good play-ability or we realize a lot of equity flopping well, (and have to fold to some 4bets) it might be comparable EV wise...
We can combat this by 3betting the right combos based on your 3b success vs him/pool. vs. my pool, I have had this spot come up 1800+ times (3b opportunity vs UTG with no squeeze possible). I have 3b UTG here ~148 times. This is 8%+ which is probably a touch too much vs UTG. My overall 3b success is under 20% (in this exact spot) to be honest LOL. So it is a spot I am profitable in buts it clearly has much room for improvement.
If I looked at it under a microscope, I am certain its too wide. It should be like pure 3b AA-QQ, AKs, AKo, A5s & A4s. Mixing some AQs/AQo (could be treated as pure). KQs, KQo, JJ, TT. And lastly, mixing some medium SC's that provide some board coverage/lack some of the domination problems that stuff like AJ has.
well you pay more rake because the pot is bigger. Anyway folding 65% to a almost potsize 3bet OOP isnt excessive.
Hey Zinom!
I get the more rake for bigger pot side of it. At the moment, i'm only talking about the rake minimization aspect, as it seems to be a given that "you 3b to reduce rake". The postflop stuff is obviously super complex in terms of postflop strategy; chance to win the pot etc. I would think there can be benefits to playing a more complex strategy and increasing the SPR when you have these high implied odds hands in position.
In terms of the math, I agree to a point. If we tweak the numbers (say open at 2.5x and 3b to 8x; or open at 2.2x and 3b to 7x etc), you still have oop folding a lot more than some of the standard recommendations suggest. For example, Preflop Guru suggests HJ opens to 2.5x and folds 50% to an 8bb BU raise in the simple version.
Interestingly, Preflop Guru suggests button take a 3b or fold strategy vs HJ in the simplified version but in the rake version flats about 1/3 of continuing range. Fwiw, seeing the difference in ranges is is what prompted the think about the strategy and this post...
Obviously, vs. weaker regs or rec players, I default to a 3b or fold to apply more pressure. But against players who play a lot closer to a GTO/solved opening range, but not as well postflop (otherwise they'd be at higher stakes), doesn't it make sense to mix it up a bit?
Another thing to consider is rake caps. At most stakes above the lowest couple micro limits, 3betting makes it more likely that you will engage in some unraked play by hitting the cap.
The likelihood of overcalls also pushes up the rake paid by flatting.
Fair points Brett, and I agree !
For example, at NL25z at stars, the cap kicks in at about 90bb. This would probably require 3 streets of betting in a 3b pot - since these are still somewhat rare, I excluded for simplicity. Giving a low weight probably does't move the needle much in total % though?
Regarding overcalls - true, and this will increase rake. But given that postflop continuing frequency decreases with extra players, doesn't this decrease the total rake we expect to pay? In terms of EV, given the types of low equity / high implied hands we're flatting (small-mid pps; scs), is it not preferable?
Solvers have shown that as rake increases the flating range decreases to the point that it becomes a big 3/4/5 bet game.
Database have shown that 3b or fold is more profitable strategy.
By flating you encourage squeeze. You play capped range. You face difficult decisions postflop which translates in more mistakes.
By 3 betting you make your decisions much more easy. You can cbet at high frequency IP , you can fully realize your equity bc people don't x/r enough, you are uncapped.
I dont know which way you are paying more rake but I know that playing 3b or fold is definitely better EV strategy.
Thanks This is,
I'm curious - which solvers show this? For example, Preflop guru claims to be based off of solvers and specifically recommends a flatting strategy in some spots for the raked environment and a 3b or fold strategy in a rakeless one. Any thoughts on the disconnect here?
Regarding a better overall strategy - I've heard strong players recommend both with great justifications... But at the moment i'm not interested in this and was just curious on the rake effects (as per point 1). The math i did suggests you might be paying more rake on aggregate when you 3b instead of flatting. Thoughts?
Agree that squeezing happens a bit more if you flat. I'm not sure how much more - what increase would you suggest? I'd think that if it becomes rampant then that in itself could offer a different opportunity vs. some regs while also allowing the ep raiser to further clarify holdings. I don't have a balanced approach to this, but imagine one could be created and that it might not as terrible as people expect?
As you move up in stakes the main thing that disincentives playing 3B or fold isn't that flatting suddenly became so much higher EV it's typically because of the aggressive 4B that you will face both from the opener and players behind, if you only ever get re-raised off of your equity by hands that have you crushed then the EV of 3B goes up and the need to defend those marginal hands decreases. In a no rake environment with passive players pre that do not 4B bluff enough I would play 3B or fold because in general even the stronger regs suck at playing OOP in a 3B pot and you can play very simple and effective high frequency betting strategies on the majority of boards.
If you're specifically looking for the GTO answer then 3B or fold tends to be right anyway against anything other than a min raise because you don't reliably hit the rake cap in a single raised pot so giving up your opportunity to win the pot pre or win a big capped pot is not worth it to save some chips the small percentage of the time that you run into a premium. I think it's also exploitatively wrong because the big blind will often come along with their standard continuing range which should tighten up once you flat, this may not sound like too much of an issue but it starts to become quite hard to beat rake if you're consistently playing in very low edge multiway spots.
Thanks for the comments DNegs, lots of great points!
Regarding the tough games - this was sort of where I thought the strategy would make the most sense. Given how easy it is to download some pre-defined optimized pre-flop strategy, I think there are a fair number of regs playing a near-perfect pre-flop game against 3bets, i.e. 4-betting pretty wide (but presumably a less optimal post-flop game). It's against these sorts of players, I'd be most interested in how a range with more flats (mixed frequencies for mid pairs and suited broadways for example) plays in position .. Great point on how they'd handle oop in 3bet pots, I hadn't fully appreciated how much trouble that gives to oop player. Would you also think that their weaker post-flop game carries over into "oop large SPR flops?", idea being if we flop monsters, we capture more equity from their mistakes...
Regarding bb coming along: i definitely agree it's tougher as more players come into pot. Looking specifically at the hands we play, do we get some extra value by giving the bb a chance to get coolered?
I am skeptical that you're meeting regs who are going to 4B you optimally at even 200nl. Just as an example if you play 3B or fold as BTN vs CO 2.5x open and you raise to 8BB then the CO should 4B the following range:
AA:1,AKs:1,AQs:0.2083,AJs:0.217,ATs:0.3679,A9s:0.31,A8s:0.3029,A5s:0.4188,A4s:0.3583,AKo:0.5553,KK:1,KQs:0.3882,KJs:0.6253,KTs:0.3754,K9s:0.2331,AQo:0.6802,KQo:0.1696,QQ:1,QJs:0.5269,QTs:0.1877,AJo:0.1654,JJ:0.6161,JTs:0.2652,J9s:0.04808,TT:0.4307,T9s:0.3402,88:0.2038,77:0.05674,76s:0.1449,66:0.2793,55:0.03876
I know that's fairly hard to read but you can copy paste it into pio, but really just look at how aggro they're supposed to be with suited broadways, 39% with KQs, 63% with KJs and so on, if you're playing in games smaller than 500nl where you're confident people are nailing these mixes regularly I'd recommend finding an easier game.
As for post flop edge that's really hard to give a definitive answer to, different players will do different things well and poorly. One thing that it is worth thinking about is that you don't need to study the PFR vs IP flat dynamic as deeply if you're going to be in that spot very rarely - and often when you open and get flatted it will be a weak player as many regs play 3B or fold.
Playing flats in position is a really good way to reduce the amount of aggression that people can get away with versus your 3B range and just overall increase your equity realisation whilst allowing you to VPiP wider but I think these concerns are secondary to rake.
Finally I don't really think coolers are a big part of your EV realistically, yes the BB is going to come along with some stuff with horrible reverse implied odds but I really think that there's much more potential for edge and skill expression in heads up pots. In fact when it comes to multiway pots some of the best advice I think I've ever had is try and amp up your aggression because every1 plays overly tight in them.
Hey DNegs,
Thanks for the great reply! Really appreciate you taking the time to go through the points and discuss them. Maybe I was just freaking out about pf ranges given the availability of "solved ranges", but even still I like your point about it being easier to play with "initiative".
At the moment, I've been flatting somewhat situationally - looking ahead to see general character type and 3b frequency of players left to act and trying to estimate opener's likelihood of paying off...
In multiway pots, any general rules of thumb on how to attack? I'd assume attack scary boards more frequently?
Gonna be honest that question is a touch hard to answer properly because it mostly comes down to just generating aggression generally which is a good chunk of just playing good poker. I think once you're familiar with overbetting against capped ranges then it starts to just be something that you need to go into spots individually and understand things like their "cutoff hand" or rather the hand that they need to call to make your bluff 0ev and then obtain a feel for whether they're likely to call that hand here and also how to find low freq bluffs (which you can then start using more against nits) with hands with less obvious or no equity to punish people for not making those 0ev plays.
I don't have a huge db because I just started up again this year and part time. But, consistent with the discussion I am marginal winner to loser calling on BTN vs EP and MP and up several buy-ins as the 3bettor.
In general 3b from BTN vs any position EP,MP,CO....nearly exactly 1/3 of my BTN 3bets did not see a flop, netting +4.5 BIs over a sample of 652 occurrences out of 126k total hands played (rake free).
Thanks for the reply Cdub!
Question: are you 3bing the same group of hands you're flatting?
My argument for the flat is more about the rate - if 1/3 of the 3bets didnt' see flop, does that mean 2/3 saw flop? My "rake considerations only" argument is that it would seem like seeing flop in a much bigger pot (say 15bb ) 2/3 of the time would lead to a much bigger rake effect than seeing a flop in smaller pot (say 6bb) all the time?
I totally agree with the other posters that other factors can more than offset the extra rake (if we are even paying it), but first I just want to get as much wisdom as I can about whether we would pay extra rake in 3b vs flat pots - i've heard a lot of comments that "in high rake environment, we want to 3b to avoid rake" and I wanted to investigate....
Hey, thanks, great question and follow ups. I'm not an expert but this is a great thought exercise.
The remaining 2/3 is all other possible outcomes, so V 4bet or V2 cold 4b, hero folds and V 4bet/fold vs hero 5b are a small percentage of the remaining 2/3 without rake.
The ranges for flat vs 3b have some overlap but there are some that are exclusive to the call and 3b (QQ+, AK pure) bucket. I use RFI% by position, fold to 3b%, and who is in the BB to help inform call/fold/3b with non premium hands.
Yes, a 3b pot flop has higher rake than a SRP.
To continue to build your deep foundational understanding (wisdom ;) for flat vs 3b in rake environments I think you need to look deeper and think about all possible outcomes. WtSD & W$WSF sliced by SRP Hero calls vs Hero 3bets might be good indicators without going too deep. But, for example, I can get to the flop 97% of the time for a call from the BTN (trying to account for some blind squeeze frequency) in a single raised pot. Of those times I have all these various outcomes where I variably contribute to the rake win or lose. Compare this to the hero 3bet pot tree where you win more and exceed the rake cap more on average.
Another way to think about it is, any marginally +EV postflop call/raise without reads becomes -EV in a high rake environment. As others have stated, the frequency of those decisions is a lot higher multiway where ranges are wide compared to 3b pots where ranges are better defined.
You can get perspective by looking at categories of hands that you might play close to pure call (e.g. middle SCs, weaker suited broadways, weak suited aces, low pockets). If you find some marginal winners over a decent sample or even losers put them in the 3b or fold bucket.
Not to stray away from rake but a good thought exercise would be how do the middling hands above results compare to prospect of taking down the pot~1/3 of the time, cbetting range on a lot of boards for 1/3 pot and taking down the pot a significant portion of the time, playing the rest of the hand IP with initiative. Which collective outcome beats the rake more?
Just back in the game after a few years off.
I was catching up on solver strategy , and while shopping for presolved ranges i noticed that the packages for 100 zoom were solved for 3bet or fold from MP,CO, and SB.
I implemented this strategy 80k ago, and am of the opinion that it is far superior to the alternative .
Not sure about the rake aspect tho.
Play 10blitz fwiw
Be the first to add a comment