Global Cbetting Frequencies and Bet Sizings in 3Bet Pots
Posted by Francesco Lacriola
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 9 Comments...
Very well done video. I feel the nuances of out of position cbetting can be difficult to grasp and this helped a lot.
5:40 what does barreling the 8x do for us? Is it for value or a bluff? The same thing occurs when we bet half pot on flop and turn is a 6 at 13:20.
Thanks!
It gets value from weaker hands (pairs + gutters) and folds out some better hands (pockets between the K and the 8), and works also as a sort of a semibluff, as we hit a very strong hand on a 8 and on the Ace.
In addition to what Francesco mentioned, IP will also fold overcard combinations, which is pretty significant.
Hi Francesco,
First of all thank you for the great video.
In your first simulation (1/3 flop, 2/3 turn), in addition to the concepts you mention, I think an important reason for KQ pure betting and AK mixing might be, that KQ blocks a very significant portion of IPs bluffing range (QJs-Q9s).
So.. when checking AKo IP will be bluffing significantly more compared to when checking KQ.
What do you think about this?
While unblocking QJ, QT, JT, etc, AK blocks some of the A7, A5, A3 that also stab against checks, so it gets balanced. The main reason of the slowplay is not to fold out AQ AJ and try to win stacks/at least a big bet on the river. KQ is also more vulnerable to board pairs with A kicker, hands which get coolered by AK on a river Ace.
Hi, great breakdown. When you see in 3bp facing a bigger size we find more raises than vs a small range bet, isn't this counterintuitive to SRP where we find more raises facing smaller sizes? Why is this?
Smaller bet sizes require us to defend a wider (and weaker) range, therefore our continuing range needs more protection and by raising a lot we heavily weaken our calling range. When we face bigger sizes we don't need to defend that much and we try to deny equity/charge draws in a pot which has more potential to be bloated.
This works also preflop, for example you can see how the optimal strategy against huge IP 3bets consists in almost playing 4bet or fold as the OOP player: we won't be able to realize equity with the weaker part of our range and calling to fold very often to cbets is quite costly, considering how much we've already invested in the pot.
Hi Francesco,
I think the preflop range around BTN vs SB 3b may not accurate. As your pio tree shows, BTN def sb 3b with a range around 13%. I think it is a little bit too tight for a IP 3B pot defender. For example, BTN not calling enough low suited connectors such as 56s,67s,78s,etc. Therefroe, when the board goes from K84,to 7. IP player should have unique striahgt which is 56. It means, we cannot bet that much if we went have pot cbet on the flop. Hope I express my opionion clearly, my english is not good. In short, my point is IP player should have some unique stright and two pairs in their range, but your pio simulation not includes those combos.
Hi, my Pio ranges are calculated with Monker solver considering the pokerstars.it rake structure (which is quite high). Those combos are mixes/low frequency defenses due to rake. If you check GTO Wizard ranges which are calculated I believe assuming 500NL zoom rake you can also see how such combos are not profitable as pure calls. If the rake were very low it would be possible to defend wider and maybe pure call such combos. Things can change if you're playing deeper than 100x, like 125x or more: in that case it might make sense to defend a bit wider preflop, because higher implied odds postflop mitigate the negative effects of a high rake structure.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.