HappyZKoala

Hi,
Just dropping a post looking for any micro/low stakes players who are interested in joining a (discord) study group. The group is used for sharing HH analysis, chat, sweats, goals/challenges, playing home games etc. within a small community.
Primarily looking for winning players at nl10+, dedicated to improving there game. majority of the group currently plays micro stakes (nl10-25).

Message me if interested with some basic info about you/your game for an invite :)

Another post about 3-betting strategies.
After recently studying 3-betting strategies, and which is/are the best to utilize at the micro stakes games, I have come to a basic conclusion about the strategy I will employ; Polar IP; Linear/merged OOP. (I never employ a completely linear/polar 3b range - I find it best to utilize a slight mix of both strategies, but generally leaning towards one; position dependent).

That being said, I still have a few questions based around the topic:
1). when utilizing a linear/merged 3bing range OOP vs LP opens, do small PP's come under that range (I am not/rarely 3-betting these VS EP)? I have recently started 3b'ing these hands and playing them more aggressively (x% of small PP's) vs BTN/CO opens - is this a good strat, and if so, what are the reasons for it (maximizing FE etc.)?
2a). What does a linear/merged range look like?

Elementary question right, and I completely understand that a merged range generally is going to consist of 1010+, A10/Js+, AJ/Qo+ etc. (or in this area). But when talking about 3b'ing range from the SB vs BTN my 3b'ing range is much wider, and I still consider it linear. Not only is it some % of 22+, A10o+, A9s+ (ish), K10s+, QJs+, It will also consist of some J9s, Q8s etc.

2b). Is the above SB vs BTN/LP 3b'ing range okay/correct (any suggestions?). Is it okay to mix in some J9s, Q8s etc.?
2c). I assume it is is, but is the above SB vs BTN/LP 3b'ing range just a wider linear/merged 3b range?
3). IP, as mentioned I am utilizing a polar 3-betting strat. Any thoughts on the following range, lets say from OTB vs MP, assuming effective stacks are around 100BB's (adaptions made dependent on positions, reads, stack depth etc.) - VALUE: AQ(/K)o+, JJ+, perhaps KQs + AJ(/Q)s+, BLUFFS: A2-5s, x no./% of 87s 910s, J9s etc. (enough to balance)?

Any further advice/suggestions on the topic would be greatly appreciated.
I would like to thank anyone in advance for reading and replying to this slightly elementary post - cheers!

So. IP I am 3-betting a more polar range in comparison to my more linear range OOP (this is in order to exploit wider calling ranges IP, and folds OOP). This brings me to 4-betting in and OOP.

My understanding is that vs a polar range, we want to be utilizing a linear strategy (and vice versa)? This is in order to exploit wider 3-betting range which consists of more bluffs in comparison to a linear range. When we 4b polar vs a linear 3b we can allow V to take flops, which is going to be good for our polar range, especially IP (meaning our bluffing section of our polar 4b's can potentially continue post flop on certain textures). I assume a polar range is going to be 5-betting AI/folding more, and taking fewer flops vs a 4b. With our linear range, we can then take our top x% hands and find a call vs a 5b AI, and fold our bottom x% hands (V/position dependent).

That being said, I never employ a completely linear/polar 3/4b range - I find it best to utilize a slight mix of both strategies, but generally leaning towards one; position dependent.

Am I correct in saying we should be 4-betting less vs a linear range? (as we will potentially find fewer folds vs a range w/ fewer bluffs).

I have also read some articles based on 4-betting strategy, and have found some that suggest a polar 4-betting range vs polarized 3bs, and linear vs linear. Is this the correct strat? Or, is it simply too V based; obviously I understand our strat depends somewhat on these factors, but does it depend entirely on elements such as how often V folds to 4b's etc. (upon these V dependent factors is how we develop our 4-betting range).

Is this logic correct or am I incorrect in my thought process? Any advice/opinions/thought's would be greatly appreciated, as this is something I am struggling with slightly atm (basically reasons why we should be employing a linear/polar strat vs 3b's).

Cheers.

As I have experimented with smaller c-bet sizing (30-35% pot ish) in the micro stakes, especially w/ a wider range from the BTN vs blinds, I have found they rarely achieve the desired effect (of a wide c-bet often used to fold out equity). I know that the blinds will be continuing w/ a wider range vs a smaller bet sizing's + the BTN's already wide range, but It's not become rare for me to see players end up at the river w/ ridiculous hands (seemingly 100% of the range they get to the flop with), often w/ no flopped equity or SDV. I am regularly using these small c-bets in 3b pots on dry texture's, or even in a normal pot (from any position), entirely dependent on range's, board texture, and obviously how those ranges interact w/ that texture. I have also spotted micro/small stakes streamers come up against player often spazzing vs small-c-bets.

Therefore I propose the use of smaller c-bets for an entirely different purpose at the micro/small stakes. Instead of the more traditional use of folding out hands w/ equity OTF/OTT (delayed), and perhaps using the smaller sizing to exploit ranges on certain textures, and give yourself a 'good price' to take down the pot. Perhaps we can begin to extract maximum value, and exploit an overly wide continuing range, as well as to allow opponents to 'spaz'.

For example, vs a 50% pot c-bet V is continuing with 40% range, whereas vs a 33% pot c-bet, V is continuing with 75% range. To really exploit this strategy players will need a much more developed post flop ability than with the traditional c-bet (in order to optimally play turns/rivers vs such a wide range).

To further detail, I am suggesting these smaller c-bets w/ a stronger range OTF/T in order to exploit wide continuing ranges. This is as w/ a wide/light c-betting range OTF (as traditional), the suggested sizing often does not produce effective results at these stakes. Now I am not saying these sizing's cannot be used for the more traditional purpose in certain spots, as they definitely can (in-fact I recommend the use of these sizing's for both purposes, not only to exploit different spots, but to remain balanced).

Not sure if a similar strategy has been suggested in the past, just find this quite an interesting strategy, and I am further interested in how these smaller c-bet sizing's can be used effectively.

Also interested to see how players utilize these smaller c-bets in their game, and how you can potentially use them to exploit opponents (in what spots, from what positions, vs what ranges etc.)? And how do you find players react to these sizes in different spots?

P.s First time posting on this site, also created a thread on this strat/topic over at 2+2.