---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by blah234 (Mid Stakes)

You say this is a standard 3bet, why is that? Its vs a 13/4 (not sure what the hand sample is). If you didnt notice he was so tight and that changes your mind, why would this be a standard 3bet vs a more tagish opponent?

The 3bet is a little splashy.. But 3betting top 12-15% vs CO open is more or less standard. Why?

Because those are the hands that we can play from the SB vs a 3x open from the CO unless CO is VERY wide. We could call with some of the hands and 3bet a tighter range.. but then we would be splitting our range into two parts.. which makes hand reading a lot easier for our opponents.

So your saying a depolarized 3bet range from the SB of 12-15%, more/less depending on the opponent, is the recommended play as a standard. And eliminate all call range in the sb to make hand reading harder for observent opponents?

So your saying a depolarized 3bet range from the SB of 12-15%, more/less depending on the opponent, is the recommended play as a standard. And eliminate all call range in the sb to make hand reading harder for observent opponents?

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

We use depolarized range providing that Villain responds by folding or calling. If he prefers folding or 4-betting instead, remember to switch into polarized range and 3b/5b something like { 22+, AQ+ }.

We use depolarized range providing that Villain responds by folding or calling. If he prefers folding or 4-betting instead, remember to switch into polarized range and 3b/5b something like { 22+, AQ+ }.

In BB where it is easier for us to split our range and flat some hands vs the CO it is less of a mistake to think like this. But poker is seldom black or white.

We can 3bet trash vs a player that folds way too much pre flop and/or a plays super weak post flop.

But that does not mean that we should start flatting BW hands unless we are also flatting our very best hands.

I'm not a big fan of the terms polarized and depolarized in a pre flop context. That is why I wrote top 12-15%. T5s has more than 35% equity vs any reasonable calling range. So even complete trash has a fair bit of equity.

If we are not 3betting Top X % of hands. Then we are likely 3betting 22+, AQo and the neighbors to the weakest BW hands we flat pre flop. Hands like K8s which has > 40% equity vs a reasonable calling range. Now polarized make no sense.

Edit: I know I have used those terms myself in the not so far past. And I may misspeak from time to time.. but I really think it is counter productive to have the wrong framework for our thought process.

hi nice vid as usual, you repeat several times to calculate ev and several time that an action seems very close from an other (exemple folding or raising river)
can you please take a hand of this video where you think ev is close and do the maths so we could have the right method to do it, because i have to say that even if i am a winning 100/200 player i sometime struggle to find the more ev+ hand with pokerstove and my brain (for something more difficult than calling a river bet given pot odds)
im surely not the only one
thanks and have a nice day

...3betting top 12-15% vs CO open is more or less standard..

hi how did you come to this number?


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.771% 63.83% 00.94% 270463097416 3976061106.00 { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 35.229% 34.29% 00.94% 145294405172 3976061106.00 { random }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.444% 63.24% 01.20% 265310552308 5042300084.00 { 99+, A4s+, KQs, A4o+ }
Hand 1: 35.556% 34.35% 01.20% 144119327524 5042300084.00 { random

does that means that top 15% is the same using pairs or AXs to go with nut hands? because im allwaus strugling to chose between small pairs and Ax to 3bet/5bet

hi nice vid as usual, you repeat several times to calculate ev and several time that an action seems very close from an other (exemple folding or raising river)
can you please take a hand of this video where you think ev is close and do the maths so we could have the right method to do it, because i have to say that even if i am a winning 100/200 player i sometime struggle to find the more ev+ hand with pokerstove and my brain (for something more difficult than calling a river bet given pot odds)
im surely not the only one
thanks and have a nice day

Watch the existing math videos on this site to learn to calculate EV. EV calculations by hand takes forever and way too long to post every step in the forum.

hi how did you come to this number?

does that means that top 15% is the same using pairs or AXs to go with nut hands? because im allwaus strugling to chose between small pairs and Ax to 3bet/5bet

3betting small PP is not a super great idea vs CO. We get called too often and villain will have a rather strong range + jamming is a little meh vs CO. That said there are players who 4bet/fold with too high a frequency. All in all I would rather 3bet/5bet the suited aces.

TOP 15% is roughly how wide you can 3bet without having to jam very marginal hands over a 4bet.

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

please tell me if this range construction is correct for defeing my blindes (at least Sb because its more difficutl to flat with the possibility of being squeezed)
i want to termine which % i have to defend my blindes to improve my game (i know its not the first leak to plug but i fold to steal around 80%..)

we are sb and a btn opens to 3bb, he steals 40% as most regs
he can open any two card if we fold more than 66% so we have to defend 33%
since he steals 40% we have to defend 13.2%
since small PP are much difficult to play postflop oop and we have blockers with Axs we construct a 3bet range of around 13% (more that what i do now + the fact that i sometimes call when i think i wont be squezed)
the 3 bet ranges would be TT+,A2s+,A9o+,A5o-A2o,if he rarely calls but either fold or 4bet
the 3bet ranges is now 99+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KJo+ if he often calls


if he opens 2,5bb he can open any two cards if we fold more than 55% preflop, so we have to defend 45%, since he steals 40% we have to defend 18%...
the 3bet ranges is now 77+,A2s+,A2o+ if he rarely calls but either fold or 4bet
the 3bet ranges is now 77+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A9o+,A4o-A2o,KJo+ if he often calls

is it the right method? i m suprised that we does not flat anything
it s much difficutl to construc the range for BB

thanks its a good way of improvment, expecting its not too much out of video

we are sb and a btn opens to 3bb, he steals 40% as most regs
he can open any two card

Apparently he is not opening ATC. There is a player left to act so it is not just up to you to defend the blinds.

3bet a range where you are comfortable jamming wide enough to not become too exploitable pre flop because you 3bet/fold too often. Top 15% is not a crazy choice wider if villain folds too much

ok i think i got it (when i wrote any 2 cards that meant he can open any two IF if fold more thant x%..but to construct the range i took the betsize + the fact that he open 40% and not 100%
thanks it seems i will be better in my sb play, i have to think about a calling range in BB

Time Link to 00:42:49

You say that you need x% vs someone's entire range to value bet the river, but isn't it also the case that we use certain bet sizes in order to target certain parts of someone's range? For example, in this hand, can we not bet something ridiculous like 12 bucks on the river and assume he'll look us up with practically any spade?

You say that you need x% vs someone's entire range to value bet the river, but isn't it also the case that we use certain bet sizes in order to target certain parts of someone's range? For example, in this hand, can we not bet something ridiculous like 12 bucks on the river and assume he'll look us up with practically any spade?

you never know what people will do with their range. What if you bet 12 and he jams for example here? Playing vs a part of villain's range is a leak because you're always playing vs their full range and not parts of it. If you think betting smaller will cause villain to call with a wider range which gives you over 50% equity then by all means do it, you'd need a pretty good reason as to why you'd expect that action though, especially vs thinking players since almost no one bluffs with that sizing.

Hi, I renewed my subscription here just to check out your latest content, it's awesome!

I have one question regarding decision making, variable counts in poker, risk vs reward and whether or not that decision is +/- EV.

You 3bet that AQ vs UTG open - it's very simple to understand and it's a one-step plan.

How do you view low EV, high risk multi-street plans that can be very -EV if you have one of your variables wrong (out of many that were involved in the hand) - basically, where your lack of information can induce big mistakes from yourself.

I find that it's very easy to make decisions based on math when the pot is very small and opponents ranges are widest, but whenever I narrow my own range and my opponents range (big pots), I end up spewing, because my assumptions about my opponents range and his reaction to my actions was wrong to begin with (after we got to turn or river). At least on small stakes, turn and river play should be fairly honest in my experience so I like to draw the line that I don't cross on the flop and very rarely deviate from that unless I have good reads on my opponents.

I have another theroy. To sum it up it goes basically like this - if you steal pre flop and on the flop where you are automatically +EV in a vacuum and after that always shut down, never give anything away unless you are at big equity advantage (PE and FE combined) & your opponents steal from you less than you steal from them, you basically end up freerolling with the top of your range and exploit the fact that they put too much money in the pot for no reason. When faced with agression you don't fight for "splits" or "0EV", you just fold and lose nothing, you only fight when you are offering your opponents some kind of reverse implied odds, where he only wins small pots and ALWAYS loses when the pots get big. Does this make sense and should I follow this philosophy?