---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by FoxwoodsFiend (Mid Stakes)

Time Link to 00:05:28

Shouldn't we be 3betting with a polarized range in this spot? Is that what you are describing when you talk about 3betting "like an animal" against an e.p. raise on the button?

Shouldn't we be 3betting with a polarized range in this spot? Is that what you are describing when you talk about 3betting "like an animal" against an e.p. raise on the button?

Sorry forgot to answer this question. We shouldn't have 1 generalized strategy. what we should do is have different strategy for each spot and villain. So general statements like we should 3bet polarized IP is meaningless. We should 3 bet like an animal if it's +EV otherwise what's the point in spewing? If someone is raising a wide range in EP though, we should 3 bet often to discourage them from opening wide. We can play 50-60% of hands profitably on the button if it's folded to us but can't do that if someone raised in front. People raising wide range in front of us reduces our overall EV so we 3 bet to discourage them from doing so.

Sorry forgot to answer this question. We shouldn't have 1 generalized strategy. what we should do is have different strategy for each spot and villain. So general statements like we should 3bet polarized IP is meaningless. We should 3 bet like an animal if it's +EV otherwise what's the point in spewing? If someone is raising a wide range in EP though, we should 3 bet often to discourage them from opening wide. We can play 50-60% of hands profitably on the button if it's folded to us but can't do that if someone raised in front. People raising wide range in front of us reduces our overall EV so we 3 bet to discourage them from doing so.

I understand what you are saying and wholeheartedly agree. I was more referring to 3betting polarized IP as a default. NAtuarlly player tendencies override any plan we had going into the game when the player was an unknown.

However, I think there are many layers to how we can 3bet and it's not all or nothing as described. Further, even when we 3bet like crazy there are some non 3-bet hands. Further, even when we 3-bet very thin we have to mix in some non-premium hands. It's all a matter of how you're balancing... and that's what i'm trying to establish. In position I'm going to want to, as a default, balance by polarizing. This isn't a general strategy. It's my strategy until I determine what type of leak my opponent has (please let me know if I'm misunderstanding, here).

Essentially, what I'm saying is, that against any unknown or standard reg I'm going to want to balance my 3-betting range with polarization due to a good opponent's aversion to flatting 3-bets out of position. I feel that this is in line with what you were saying but said in a different way.

In regards to 3-betting a wide open range, would it make more sense to flat more often to play more hands with better equity in position to hammer this opponent's leak?

I'm sorry if my explanations are insufficient/dumb. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions/correct the flaws in my thinking.

First of all I have no idea why we want to be balanced in our 3 betting range vs EP to start with. In fact I don't think we ever need to balance our actual range unless it's a spot where villain will exploit us if we're not. We're not 3 betting that much to start with so they can't 4bet or call with a wide range. If our default assumption is people never ever ever call 3 bets OOP then we can be purely polarized but that's only a theoretical scenario. When the call button pops up people will click it sometimes so we'd like the strongest hands that doesn't make much profit flatting to be in our 3 betting range if possible. Of course we don't control the order in which we get dealt cards so that "strongest hands" is subject to game flow, dynamic etc.

As games get more aggressive, flatting open raises with hands that are slightly +EV postflop will be come -EV due to squeezing and not even getting to see a flop.

1First of all I have no idea why we want to be balanced in our 3 betting range vs EP to start with. In fact I don't think we ever need to balance our actual range unless it's a spot where villain will exploit us if we're not. (2) We're not 3 betting that much to start with so they can't 4bet or call with a wide range. (3)If our default assumption is people never ever ever call 3 bets OOP then we can be purely polarized but that's only a theoretical scenario. (4) When the call button pops up people will click it sometimes so we'd like the strongest hands that doesn't make much profit flatting to be in our 3 betting range if possible. Of course we don't control the order in which we get dealt cards so that "strongest hands" is subject to game flow, dynamic etc.

(5)As games get more aggressive, flatting open raises with hands that are slightly +EV postflop will be come -EV due to squeezing and not even getting to see a flop.

I numbered your post and my response for organization

1.To be certain, I am not advocaitng being balanced... but we will ned to have some balancing factors to continue to get value from the very top of our range when we 3-bet. Preflop play is a spot where even bad villains can have it somewhat down. So if we're only 3betting the very top of our range we don't get a ton of value so we have to mix more hands in in order to (a) get villain to call lighter or (b) exploit their incredible tightness. We aren't balancing so much as we are shifting our 3bets to exploit their leaks. Saying balance was a misnomer and my mistake.
2. I'm referring to "3betting like an animal" this may be my mistake but I was under the assumption that we were 3-betting a wide range here based on that comment
3. I think that you think I'm thinking in absolutes here... Villains will call some... but it's their propensity to call vs. raise that would indicate whether we should polarize and to what degree
4. This is 100% how I bet my polarized range. I have a feeling we might be having an issue of semantics here but when I 3bet a polarized range the air portion of that range should be the very best hands we can't profitably call.
5. I had not thought of this. Great point

I numbered your post and my response for organization

1.To be certain, I am not advocaitng being balanced... but we will ned to have some balancing factors to continue to get value from the very top of our range when we 3-bet. Preflop play is a spot where even bad villains can have it somewhat down. So if we're only 3betting the very top of our range we don't get a ton of value so we have to mix more hands in in order to (a) get villain to call lighter or (b) exploit their incredible tightness. We aren't balancing so much as we are shifting our 3bets to exploit their leaks. Saying balance was a misnomer and my mistake.
2. I'm referring to "3betting like an animal" this may be my mistake but I was under the assumption that we were 3-betting a wide range here based on that comment
3. I think that you think I'm thinking in absolutes here... Villains will call some... but it's their propensity to call vs. raise that would indicate whether we should polarize and to what degree
4. This is 100% how I bet my polarized range. I have a feeling we might be having an issue of semantics here but when I 3bet a polarized range the air portion of that range should be the very best hands we can't profitably call.
5. I had not thought of this. Great point

1. How is anyone going to find out that we're only 3 betting the very top of my range against them so they can make correct folds? Please don't say stats since I can 3 bet everyone 10% and 3 bet you 2% and my stats in that spot will show like 9.8%. Range also should be constantly changing so different range each time someone raises. Balancing our actual range in this spot is not very useful as long as we have weaker hands in our perceived range villain will defend vs 3 bets.

3. There are hands that are +EV both 3 betting and calling AA is the best example hands like KQo are probably in that category as well. It's our job to decide whether it's higher EV to 3 bet or call. Even with a polarized range or whatever you want to call it if it's higher EV to 3 bet KQo for whatever reason then just do it. So only using hands that can't profitably call to 3 bet "bluff" is a misconception and not considering overall EV of our range.

1. How is anyone going to find out that we're only 3 betting the very top of my range against them so they can make correct folds? Please don't say stats since I can 3 bet everyone 10% and 3 bet you 2% and my stats in that spot will show like 9.8%. Range also should be constantly changing so different range each time someone raises. Balancing our actual range in this spot is not very useful as long as we have weaker hands in our perceived range villain will defend vs 3 bets.

3. There are hands that are +EV both 3 betting and calling AA is the best example hands like KQo are probably in that category as well. It's our job to decide whether it's higher EV to 3 bet or call. Even with a polarized range or whatever you want to call it if it's higher EV to 3 bet KQo for whatever reason then just do it. So only using hands that can't profitably call to 3 bet "bluff" is a misconception and not considering overall EV of our range.

I think there's a failure of communication between us which is very likely to be my fault. I tend to skip steps when talking/writing and take too long with other steps.

In this conversation I'm referencing the idea that we want to 3bet EP raisers a lot. In order to do this, we will need to 3bet some portion of our non-nut range. What I'm trying to discuss is how that non-nut range should be constructed. I guess the crux of what I'm trying to say is this (and again, I apologize for being confusing in my posts... I'm really a terrible writer):

The non-nut portion of our depolarized range will almost always be more +ev than the non-nut portion of our polarized range, regardless of our action. Even if villain is more likely to raise/fold 3betting KJs will be more +ev than 3betting J5s. I'm not arguing this. What I'm arguing is that in this situation 3betting KJs reduces its overall ev due to the frequency by which we'll get raised. Since we don't want to reduce the ev of such a large portion of our range we will want to call with our tier 2 and tier 3 hands. Now, in order to obtain the 3bet frequency we want to deter early position raisers from opening too wide and reducing our overall button EV we will have to 3bet some non-nut hands. Since 3betting our good but not great hands reduces their EV we will want to 3bet more towards the bottom of our range.

Does this make sense or am I still really far off from where I should be in understanding this concept?

Thanks again, for clearing up my misconceptions

We're talking about the same thing I believe. If you think it's higher EV to call KJs than 3 bet then you should call. We're comparing the EV of 3 betting vs call of for example KJs and not the EV of 3 betting KJs vs J5s.

We're talking about the same thing I believe. If you think it's higher EV to call KJs than 3 bet then you should call. We're comparing the EV of 3 betting vs call of for example KJs and not the EV of 3 betting KJs vs J5s.

Yea, like I said, I'm often times a pretty bad communicator. I did learn a lot from this video series/conversation so thanks again

Time Link to 00:16:32

I really hate the small raise in the SB vs BB....... you're just giving him a crazy good price to own you with position, I'm confused why FWF suggests a small raise when 3betting IP and larger when OOP, but for this situation says its fine to raise small OOP? We get into a lot of situations like this because nowadays people just constantly flat pre and float the flop all day and there's so little we can do to counter it other than raise more pre....

I really hate the small raise in the SB vs BB....... you're just giving him a crazy good price to own you with position, I'm confused why FWF suggests a small raise when 3betting IP and larger when OOP, but for this situation says its fine to raise small OOP? We get into a lot of situations like this because nowadays people just constantly flat pre and float the flop all day and there's so little we can do to counter it other than raise more pre....

Last time I answer this questions in any of my videos. I do it because it's higher EV than folding and that's it. I've explained the reasoning already. Whoever disagree with it can pass up this spot. Math doesn't lie.

Time Link to 00:13:17

If the small blind was not involved, you wanted to flat AQ here. You say you can blufraise with overcards, but what are good situations for bluffraising? Calling preflop only for a pair is not enough? We need to call most of time 6bb for a pot of 20bb, so we get immediately pot odds. your thougts?

Time Link to 00:31:39

table 2 68s: you only 3bet here a wide valuerange?

Time Link to 00:37:38

which size is normal 4bet size here in your eyes? I always 4bet: 2* + 1bb in position, 2* + 3bb out of position 100bb diep

@39:44
table 4 AK: here you make it 130 thats 2* + 6bb I think thats way to big? Except if he calls to much 4bets.

which size is normal 4bet size here in your eyes? I always 4bet: 2* + 1bb in position, 2* + 3bb out of position 100bb diep

@39:44
table 4 AK: here you make it 130 thats 2* + 6bb I think thats way to big? Except if he calls to much 4bets.

4 bet size needs to be bigger than 20BB+ generally otherwise people can flat. I suggest you do some math or play around with card runner EV for this. Rules like 2x + some BB is dumb so if someone 3 bets you to 15BB you'd make it 33BB OOP? That clearly doesn't make sense.