Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

Your thought process is really weird and doesn't seem like you're playing no limit holdem. Seems like a combination of FPS and poor understanding of fundamentals.

1. 3 bet 10% CO vs BU is boarder line nit so why would anyone expect you to jam AJ pre?
2. If you rep a polarized range usually means people should be more likely to rebluff or bluff catch since your range is much weaker combo wise. So why would you fold?
3. Raise for thin value means nothing, so what if villain's calling range has less than 50% equity vs your hand? There's still turn and river left so even if villain has equity disadvantage it's not guaranteed to be +EV. In another words, EV on individual street is pointless and only the EV of your overall line matters.
4. How can you say you're using your image or whatever when you don't even have an idea how villain will react to your line? If you have a bad image villain will be more likely to play back If you have a good image villain will be more likely to fold. So you are using your bad image on the flop to get "thin value" but on the turn your bad image instantly disappears now you got a nitty image so you are folding?
5. if you're going to b/f turn you should of decided on that before you bet. Then your sizing is terrible.

Perhaps good time for you to get a coach and correct your thought process.

Very good points here, thank you for taking the time to reply.

Your remarks are quite sound. Above all, I didn't plan the turn play correctly ; I knew what to do if he called, but not if he raised, and indeed my sizing + my image are certainly creating more incentives for him to raise.

I'm at a time of my 'career' (so to speak...) where my results are not very good, and I feel I do have to become more solid and strenghen my fundamentals. Will certainly continue to watch DC videos and will def consider taking a coach.

Really don't like raising the flop. There are tons of bad cards on the turn which sucks, but since he is good he isn't going to spew on later streets. My plan for this hand would be to try to get two streets of value. He gave you one on the flop, so time to evaluate how the turn changes the texture and subsequently his ranges and act accordingly.

What bad card, a diamond? It's not appropriate to consider hands as 1, 2 or 3 streets of value, it's possible the opponent can be stacked by AJ here by raising the flop and over betting the turn AI depending on his perception of your range for doing it. You need to think a little less strictly in terms of absolute hand strength.

Put Villian on a range that raises turn and count the number of hands that call a shove (imo almost any hand in his range) stove your equity vs. that range and calculate the pot odds you are laying yourself, then i think a more clear idea of what the you should do here. And it's also good for the diskussion, describe your thoughproces.

It seems like Villian is polarized OTT I doubt he raises diamond draws and weaker aces as a bluff imo.

Your thought process is really weird and doesn't seem like you're playing no limit holdem. Seems like a combination of FPS and poor understanding of fundamentals.

1. 3 bet 10% CO vs BU is boarder line nit so why would anyone expect you to jam AJ pre?
2. If you rep a polarized range usually means people should be more likely to rebluff or bluff catch since your range is much weaker combo wise. So why would you fold?
3. Raise for thin value means nothing, so what if villain's calling range has less than 50% equity vs your hand? There's still turn and river left so even if villain has equity disadvantage it's not guaranteed to be +EV. In another words, EV on individual street is pointless and only the EV of your overall line matters.
4. How can you say you're using your image or whatever when you don't even have an idea how villain will react to your line? If you have a bad image villain will be more likely to play back If you have a good image villain will be more likely to fold. So you are using your bad image on the flop to get "thin value" but on the turn your bad image instantly disappears now you got a nitty image so you are folding?
5. if you're going to b/f turn you should of decided on that before you bet. Then your sizing is terrible.

Perhaps good time for you to get a coach and correct your thought process.

Good post, but I'm not sure I agree with 10% 3-bet CO vs BTN being borderline nit or even nitty at all. Obviously, it depends on how often villain is opening CO, but what do you think is a reasonable frequency range for 3-betting in this situation?

Good post, but I'm not sure I agree with 10% 3-bet CO vs BTN being borderline nit or even nitty at all. Obviously, it depends on how often villain is opening CO, but what do you think is a reasonable frequency range for 3-betting in this situation?

like you said depends on how often villain opens the CO. I'm assuming 25% range for "standard player" in CO.

like you said depends on how often villain opens the CO. I'm assuming 25% range for "standard player" in CO.

Yeah that's what I assume too. I did some work reading about "optimal" pair strategies for 3/4/5-betting 100BB deep and against a 25% CO opening range the "optimal" amount to 3-bet is 8.7%. This is assuming villain is playing a balanced 4-bet or fold strategy and also based on a 3bb open, 10.5bb 3bet, and 25bb 4-bet from what I remember, but I doubt 3betting to 9bb would change the math all that much. This is not to say that we shouldn't be 3-betting more than 10% against a lot of villains, but a competent opponent can combat this pretty easily by simply 4-bet/calling TT+, AQ+ and 4-bet folding 40 combos. So against a very good villain, playing "optimal" is not a bad idea at all. My point is basically just that I don't see 10% as anywhere close to nitty. I also want to say that I'm not just trying to be nit picky about your post, but more or less trying to get your thoughts because I think it's interesting to talk about.

Yeah that's what I assume too. I did some work reading about "optimal" pair strategies for 3/4/5-betting 100BB deep and against a 25% CO opening range the "optimal" amount to 3-bet is 8.7%. This is assuming villain is playing a balanced 4-bet or fold strategy and also based on a 3bb open, 10.5bb 3bet, and 25bb 4-bet from what I remember, but I doubt 3betting to 9bb would change the math all that much. This is not to say that we shouldn't be 3-betting more than 10% against a lot of villains, but a competent opponent can combat this pretty easily by simply 4-bet/calling TT+, AQ+ and 4-bet folding 40 combos. So against a very good villain, playing "optimal" is not a bad idea at all. My point is basically just that I don't see 10% as anywhere close to nitty. I also want to say that I'm not just trying to be nit picky about your post, but more or less trying to get your thoughts because I think it's interesting to talk about.

I have no idea what you read but I'm fairly sure it's wrong and probably posted by a guy that never played NLHM. There's no such thing as balanced 4bet/fold strategy. 4 betting bluffing is either +EV in which case we should do it or its not in which case we should never do. This depends on villain's shoving range and 3 betting range. For example if we're shoving TT + and AQ and 3 bet 10% every single time villain 4 bets with the intention of folding, he's -EV.

So if villain raise to 3 and we 3bet to 9 villain has to fold less than around 2/3. 1/3 of 25% = roughly 8.3% so villain has to stack off with top 8.3% of hands which is totally unreasonable. All his 4 bet bluff are -EV so what can he do next? Call of course, but then we have position and postflop is a new can of worms. Fact is when we have a reasonable 3 betting range and villain has wide preflop range, there's nothing he can do that would prevent the bottom of his range from being -EV. All he can do is play tighter then we accomplished our goal.

I have no idea what you read but I'm fairly sure it's wrong and probably posted by a guy that never played NLHM. There's no such thing as balanced 4bet/fold strategy. 4 betting bluffing is either +EV in which case we should do it or its not in which case we should never do. This depends on villain's shoving range and 3 betting range. For example if we're shoving TT + and AQ and 3 bet 10% every single time villain 4 bets with the intention of folding, he's -EV.

So if villain raise to 3 and we 3bet to 9 villain has to fold less than around 2/3. 1/3 of 25% = roughly 8.3% so villain has to stack off with top 8.3% of hands which is totally unreasonable. All his 4 bet bluff are -EV so what can he do next? Call of course, but then we have position and postflop is a new can of worms. Fact is when we have a reasonable 3 betting range and villain has wide preflop range, there's nothing he can do that would prevent the bottom of his range from being -EV. All he can do is play tighter then we accomplished our goal.

No, I agree that it depends on the 3bet/shoving range of the villain. But the point of the article was to show optimal pair strategies and how to play GTO defensive strategies against good villains who we aren't yet sure how to exploit. I think the author is a successful mid-stakes player from what I understand, but I can't be sure. Either way, it's very well written imo.

Also to refute being -EV every time villain 4-bet/bluffs, that may be true, but I'm pretty sure the overall range would still be +EV from the math I just did. For example, 3-betting/shoving AQ, TT+ is 4.7% of all hands. So if you have 10% overall 3-bet, then 53% of the time you will be 3-bet/ folding. We can make it 50/50 for simplicity. Every time you 3-bet/fold, villain will make 13.5bb (1.5+3+9). The other half of the time you will 3-bet/5-bet. In this case, villain can 4-bet/call with the same range (TT+ AQ+, 62 combos) and also 4-bet/fold around 40 combos. This gives a 60/40 4-bet/call to 4-bet/fold ratio. When villain 4-bet/folds, he loses .40 * -20bb = -8bb (this assumes villain 4-bets to 23bb). When he 4-bet/calls he makes 2.25bb (.60 * ( ( -97 * .50) + (104.5 * .50))). So overall, every time villain 4-bets and you shove, villain loses -5.75bb ( -8 + 2.25). But if villain is winning 13.5bb half of the time, but only losing 5.75bb the other half, then he is clearly +EV. Feel free to check my math. I just did this all on my own, but it makes sense to me.

No, I agree that it depends on the 3bet/shoving range of the villain. But the point of the article was to show optimal pair strategies and how to play GTO defensive strategies against good villains who we aren't yet sure how to exploit. I think the author is a successful mid-stakes player from what I understand, but I can't be sure. Either way, it's very well written imo.

Also to refute being -EV every time villain 4-bet/bluffs, that may be true, but I'm pretty sure the overall range would still be +EV from the math I just did. For example, 3-betting/shoving AQ, TT+ is 4.7% of all hands. So if you have 10% overall 3-bet, then 53% of the time you will be 3-bet/ folding. We can make it 50/50 for simplicity. Every time you 3-bet/fold, villain will make 13.5bb (1.5+3+9). The other half of the time you will 3-bet/5-bet. In this case, villain can 4-bet/call with the same range (TT+ AQ+, 62 combos) and also 4-bet/fold around 40 combos. This gives a 60/40 4-bet/call to 4-bet/fold ratio. When villain 4-bet/folds, he loses .40 * -20bb = -8bb (this assumes villain 4-bets to 23bb). When he 4-bet/calls he makes 2.25bb (.60 * ( ( -97 * .50) + (104.5 * .50))). So overall, every time villain 4-bets and you shove, villain loses -5.75bb ( -8 + 2.25). But if villain is winning 13.5bb half of the time, but only losing 5.75bb the other half, then he is clearly +EV. Feel free to check my math. I just did this all on my own, but it makes sense to me.

I never said villain's range will be -EV if he 4 bet bluffs but his range will be higher EV if he never 4 bet bluff. We can never optimize the EV of our range by making -EV plays so makes no sense to have this kind of range construction.

I never said villain's range will be -EV if he 4 bet bluffs but his range will be higher EV if he never 4 bet bluff. We can never optimize the EV of our range by making -EV plays so makes no sense to have this kind of range construction.

So we should just 4-bet/call 8% in this situation?

So we should just 4-bet/call 8% in this situation?

What?

What?

I don't get what you are saying about never 4-bet bluffing. We have to defend 33% of our 25% CO opening range to prevent getting exploited by letting villain 3-bet ATC profitably. So I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here.

I don't get what you are saying about never 4-bet bluffing. We have to defend 33% of our 25% CO opening range to prevent getting exploited by letting villain 3-bet ATC profitably. So I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here.

I'm suggesting never making -EV plays that's all. We can call 3 bets with the rest of our range if 4 bet bluffing -EV and calling is +EV otherwise we 4bet/call wider range or play tighter.

If everytime we fold we lose 3BB and everytime we 4bet/call we win 10BB and we fold 70% of the times facing a 3bet which player is getting exploited? This is why I believe whoever wrote the article that you read probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm suggesting never making -EV plays that's all. We can call 3 bets with the rest of our range if 4 bet bluffing -EV and calling is +EV otherwise we 4bet/call wider range or play tighter.

If everytime we fold we lose 3BB and everytime we 4bet/call we win 10BB and we fold 70% of the times facing a 3bet which player is getting exploited? This is why I believe whoever wrote the article that you read probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's all theory and math so I'm not sure how it can be wrong unless the math is wrong. I'm also not sure how you figure 4-bet/calling is going to net 10BB if villain IP is constructing his range correctly.