3Betting Out of Position from the BB
Posted by Tyler Forrester
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 26 Comments...
One thing I've noticed in almost all of these hands is that you tend to size flops and turns really large and wind up on the river with < half pot for the river shoves.
Is this just an exploitive thing you're doing or do you think those are optimal bet size choices? On relatively static boards like (KK on AK8r), I've always understood that sizing smaller on earlier streets and increasing your sizing towards the river as your range becomes more polarized, or choosing a sizing that lets you bet closer to linearly across each street is the EV maximizing bet size approach. Is there something I'm missing as to why you like going larger on earlier streets?
I'm not comfortable saying this is a gospel, but this my understanding of the situation.
Early street betsizes should always be a little bit bigger, because every bet is some form of semibluff and the actual EV risked by betting on early streets is always smaller (because we win some of the pot when called). The corollary to this is that every hand our opponent folds also folds some equity. Our bets serve as protection as well. This means a slightly larger sizing should make more money than a linear bet. However on the river we no longer make any money with our bluffs and no longer need to worry about protection, so our sizes should be slightly smaller.
The debate in my mind is to what degree the betsizes should change. I personally think after going through the video that my betsizes for the period of time reviewed were too biased toward larger sizings on flop and turn . I would have liked to see myself betting more closely to linear sizings on each street. This should put my opponents at the biggest disadvantage, while not leaving preposterously small stack to pot ratios on the river.
Bet sizing will always be a work in progress and where even top level pros can gain value.
Could you go into a bit more depth on why in GTO land we want to deviate our sizings based on SPR in order to get all in by river (AdJd hand)? Would this rule also apply on more static board textures where the nuts air v bluff catcher toy game is more applicable? For instance if we solved for 3/4 pot across 3 streets to be balanced, then we adjust our sizing to pot, pot, pot because we're deeper, our value:air ratios will change. Is this just something we're responsible for knowing how to balance on the fly?
I should have noted this isn't GTO, but an argument make by Ackerman and Chen in MOP. They talk at length about how they try to structure their betsizings to go for either 2 street, 3-street or 4-street game, while dividing their betsizing into equal percentage of pot.
I personally think the argument comes roughly from the polar vs cap game. As the polar player we make the most money by betting the largest amounts possible against a cap range. In practice this means splitting our stack into 3 equal sized % of pot, when our stack to pot ratios are low. My rule of thumb is that if I have less than 3 equal sized pot bets left, I try to go for 3 streets. If its more than a pot sized bet, then I plan on getting all in four or more.
As to the last question about finding frequencies on the fly. The answer is yes, you should always look to either balance these on the fly or memorize in game. The execution of great poker is dependent on great frequencies. The only way to do this is to construct balanced ranges either in game or off the table :) .
usually i am super happy with your videos and the content but todays video seemed a bit lazy to me. most hands being very standard until the river. then you got into thin valuespots. i was very happy to see you in those spots since i think its interessting how they developed in the past 12 or so months and i was looking to your input but you kinda went over it a bit quickly.
maybe you didnt put to much effort into it since its a video about 3 betting from the bb and not playin 3b pots from the bb but if thats the case i dont see what the benefit for us should be if you show us how you sqz aces or 3bet your standard linear ranges. i am a bit exxaggerating here.
i was happy to see the last hand with 82s. its something i rarely do and i would like to know more about. i was dissapointed with the explanation that you see goodplayers do it so ye whatever i try it too. usually these are the spots where your videos stand out the most and you give reasonable advice. i dont doubt that you put a lot of work into everything you do but as said this seemed a bit lazy. maybe click through every hand really quickly before you start filming to avoid a lot of standardspots in the future. maybe you can expand this topic in a future video and elaborate a bit on these trashy suited hands in your 3b range.
Thank you for watching the video. I'm sorry you were disappointed in my video this week. I appreciate the feedback and strive to make all my videos entertaining.
On standard hands, playing standard hands well makes all the money :). The difference between a mediocre pro and great pro is their ability to make most the money with their best hands. Each one of these hands would be considered "standard" but the summation of value of the different plays is the difference between making millions of dollars and ten of thousands of dollars.
As to the 82s hand, I've played an inordinately small part of my volume at headsup (3000 out of my last 1000000). I consider myself a poor headsup player and haven't put much time into developing headsup ranges. This means when I find myself in a situation where I am weaker player, I look at better players range construction to dictate my own play. This is good practice and every pro does it.
Thank you again for your feedback and I hope you'll keep watching :)
11:43
Im a bit lost in this spot, you still shoving there because you consider shoving as higherEV play compared to ch/f or ch/c? Idea is to deny opponent his options either to check with his bluffcatchers or shove his value?
Oh no I think I made big mistake shoving here against the typical 2/4 opposition. I rarely get called by worse here. Against most 2/4 players the best play is to check fold. They will rarely have bluffs and will check back their midstrength hands. This makes folding QQs the right play.
Hey Tyler! Usually love your vids but this didn't hold up to your usual standard. By choosing the biggest pots in this spot you basically end up with mostly setups and standard spots with our premium hands.
It would make it more interesting if you pick a few sessions and filter for 3b OOP in BB and saw flop so we can see you play both parts of your range and not just the premium hands.
Thanks Hankie! I appreciate the feedback. I'll avoid this video in the future.
Nice video tyler, looking forward to next weeks PIO :D !
Thanks Ddog!
Great video. thx
Thanks Michael!
I think I fell asleep. All these spots are stupidly standard, you have like QQ+/AK in over half these hands and when you're light, you make the nuts anyways.
Nice vid as always!
I know there are a lot of standard NL500 zoom live videos on Run it Once, but it would be cool to see one from you since you haven't made one in a long time. :)
Thanks! I'm back in the states so it will have to be Bodog :).
Your work is among of my favorite to watch. Pleeease keep em coming.
Thanks StrugLife!
Q10s is a standart 3 bet from BB vs BTN ?
you say its a recreationnal player , dont we want to keep the pot small oop against him wich such hands?
I'd say yes, but its certainly near the threshold for an always 3-bet. I flat Q9s. Against recreational players flatting is certiainly profitable however, in my experience 3-betting neutral EV (equal between calling and 3-betting) hands tends to be very profitable against weak opposition. Even though this hand might not be in a vacuum more profitable, the more aggressive image that these 3-bets generate make it more likely that the recreational player will stack off lightly.
dont want to be rude but this first video that i watched was pretty useless! when i see a titlle 3Betting Out of Position from the BB i am expecting seeing a 3bet range from the bb where we can have an ideia of 3bet bluffs and 3betvalue and not see you just 3betting kk+ and playing pretty standard situations. very disapointed with my first video on this site.
So maybe u should watch more videos b4 commenting on whatever...
Hi Cantuho,
I'm bummed that this was your experience as your first video.
This video isn't reflective of my library, it happened to a lot more "standard" spots than usual.
If you're looking for something, a little bit more non standard, check out my video Calling from the Big Blind
Hey bud, at 26:06 we set up river poorly on turn and end up jamming over pot on river. You're speaking about needing to find 9 combos to potentially make this jam on river profitable. Can you please explain how you came up with 9? In addition how are you counting the combos to get to 9. Whenever I'm thinking of combinations I'm always thinking of terms of 16/1326 combos of AQo/AQs. If I added KQ/KQo this would be 32/1326, etc for this certain spot. Would you consider AQo/AQs 1 combo or is AQo 1 and AQs makes another? I find your videos to be extremely helpful.
I lose to 9 combos of hands when I bet the river. To make my bet profitable, I need to be called by 9 combos of worse hands (9 and 9 is 50% equity). I beat JTs, KJs (2 combos), so I need him to call 7 combos of top pairs.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.