3B Pots Explored: BB v Button
Posted by Shaun Pauwels
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 11 Comments...
Hi Shaun, Interesting video. Im quite new to independent solver work( never done any myself but have seen it being a common tool here on ROI). I have a question regarding the 75% bet size simplification. Firstly will this not make it far easier for villain to navigate. He will no longer have to find awkward calls on the flop and in general will not have to make some uncomfortable decisions if he doesnt know if youre balanced. Of course it is nice to be able to end the hand quicker when OOP but with polarized range and low SPR I feel this is a less of a factor. I find going 33% 33% is quite effective at least at lower stakes.
Secondly it is slightly strange that 25% is most common but 75% is highest EV simplification. Would it be worth playing 2 sizes on some boards. Im slightly sceptical about the large c-bet size ( mainly cause at the micros I tend to consider such players quite old-fasioned and fishy and just wanting to avoid making difficult decisions so they just try to get stacks in on the turn) and would wonder if you think a smaller size would make up for the lost EV with exploitative EV.
It depends on what you want to achieve.
I do agree that simplifying to B25 might make it harder for IP to defend often enough. Probably lots of overfolds. This series is more about exploring the theory though, not exploitative.
Do you mean most common in being used? A smaller betsize tends to bet more often anyway.
I guess it makes sense that we will bet more with the smaller size. In my head it was just slightly contradictory that the solver wants to bet 25% more often than 75% but instead we only use a 75% size. Of course it makes sense given that we are trying to simplify our strategy and 75% siplification is higher EV, i just found it slightly unintuitive given that we would ignore the solvers preffered size. Will be interested to see how this plays out in SB vs BTN. I imagine the smaller size will be the correct simplification and I guess I just need to do a little more work ok this spot. Anyway great video and thanks for the reply.
Hey Shaun thanks for the video!
Regarding polar strategy preflop -- How effective do you think it works vs the general population at low-midstakes (Say 100NL). I've seen some regulars calling pretty wide from the button (probably all pocket pairs are pure calls + some marginal hands like A6s/A2s/T8s/86s). Since we will be checking a lot as OOP so I guess our trash part lose EV when villain is overcalling?
I generally think the population isn't that well versed in the defense against it. Most other players tend to use small size cbets. So when we use a big one they tend to be more out of practice. If they then defend similar to the small size defense then several things happen:
Our value bets gain more value
Our bluffs lose more EV on the flop
We have a great barrel spot on the turn as BTN will have lots of weaker hands he will have to fold or be in a though spot with.
You do need to keep in mind our ideas behind the big sized bets. The main one being that as the OOP player we want to decrease the IP advantage of equity realization. Reducing the SPR does that.
On more dynamic boards we have a decent part of our range that wants to put in a lot of money right now, now that the hand is still good. We either achieve this by betting big, or by check raising.
This also means that as the BTN in these spots you don't want to use a big bet size when checked to.
Thanks! So you think as an exploit to regulars (who are aware of the BB dynamic) -- the better strategy is to 3b polar & enough and using big c-bet strategy OTF since they are less used to, and probably over-barreling better runout turn?
I would always try to 3bet polar from the BB.
I would prefer the bigger cbet size as it makes most sense theorywise. And it has the added benefit of being uncommon at lower stakes.
I wouldn't perse barrel more often on turn. It depends on how you percieve their defense strategy. I just added that as your initial statement was that you see some regulars call wide.
Got it! As I feel BB 3b is probably is the most underbluffed spot for low stakes -- I always pay attention to BU's showdown to see if the regulars in the pool are adjusting accordingly, also trying to think about counter-exploits vs them.
So this video is great, thank you! I'll run & study some sims myself and go through the video again (and potentially come up with some more questions :D).
Also in a solver sim IP is going to stab a ton OTF vs a check (e.g. at 13:27 you show on AJ8r IP will stab b50 42%), I don't have the data but I generally feel the pool is playing the IP as caller kind of passive. How do you think BB should react if IP is not stabbing enough & probably stabbing stronger? Do we just increase our betting frequency w the same sizing or do we size down?
Thank you!
If you are certain they understab, then a solver would change by betting value it normally checks.
The EV in BB's value checking range gets EV from BTN betting. If that doesn't happen then BB bets more often ourselves. And when we check and they check, we still have delayed bets. Being a 3bet pot we can easily get all the money in with 2 streets of big bets.
While it's not the same spot, the ideas are similar in Max's exploration of IP underraises vs blockbets in this video.
Nice! Will check it out
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.