As long as I like it, the hell with what you think ;)

About the TT snapcall: one extra factor what already made me decide that I would probably call off any bet is Villains very high river AF (7 or so). He's going to bluff or turn hands into a bluff a lot of the time there, especially given the fact that I've shown weakness on every street.

Josh> About the 3bet sizes: I always heard and seen in other vids (correctly I think) that if you're 3betting preflop OOP, you want to make your raises bigger (standard 3,5 times the original raise) if effective stacks are 100BB, to both compensate for the positional disadvantage and cut down on Villains implied odds. I agree in some hands that given the stack sizes my raise size was too big, but in the hands were effective stacks were 100BB, what do you think about it?

Was going to ask exactly this, really interested to hear more on the merits of 3x vs 4x 3 betting in and out of position.

You (Josh) seemed to be suggesting that the % of opponents stack he has to call is the most important factor. In order to protect sufficiently against set mining where would you draw the line at too small? Or is this more a factor of your 3 bet range, that as long as it is mixed for value and as bluffs then that cuts down on implied odds when playing against your range so that on a given hand where you have a big pair its ok to offer them the right price to draw at a set (if that hand is examined in a vacuum).

Basically I want to hear as much as possible on 3 bet pots, as its such an important aspect of the games these days, and I have lots of room for improvement in this part of my game.

I also learned something in the hand where someone pushed for $8 Timor had AA, that flat calling here is best, hoping someone isolates. I can see how this is best, but I find my inner nit so often takes over and hits the raise button here.

I thought this was another great video, I really love this format, and I hope we can see more of this format in the future from DC.

Thanks Josh and Timor.

I was wondering the same thing on the 3-bet sizing. Would like to hear Josh chime in on this.

From what I have studied on both cardrunners and deuces cracked, well from the lower stakes videos, I do notice that some players tend to raise a little more and some a little when 3-betting.

I am pretty sure that Josh is just trying to 3-bet without inflating the pot. I have been trying this and I like it a lot better. I just hate the feeling of inflating a pot out of position and having to bet more than I really want to on the flop when they decide to call. I used to be the same way and 3-bet more just because of my positional disadvantage but I do feel that, for me at least, the fact that you save more money both pre-flop and post-flop outweighs the advantages of betting a few dollars more. If your opponent planned on calling your 3-bet (especially at nl200 and lower levels) most of them would probably not even notice a few dollars more pre-flop. Another advantage was that I feel much more comfortable 3-betting and playing in 3-bet pots post flop now.

That was long but whatever.

Thanks for the video Josh.

i would want to bust my roll there ASAP just so that i can close those tables
but nevertheless, again, very nice vid

obviously never played on party... I'd give my right arm to play there again=(

The analysis in the TT hand on the KK3Jx board was great. I found myself getting into these spots all the time and I've just been folding giving villain credit. I was never really sure what thought process to use to figure out if I'm being bluffed or not, but after seeing this hand I think I'll be able to catch some more bluffs and fold more when villain's line does make sense.

When I 3bet oop I usually make it pot+1bb. I'll keep in mind the thought of risking less to win the dead money, but I think at 100nl- I would just rather overbet the pot pf even if I'm risking a tad more on my cbets postflop. I feel it keeps people from calling with marginal hands, and if they do they almost always play fit or fold poker to my cbets. If I just raise pot I think I get called more pf and floated more on the flop, but it's been a while since I've only raised pot oop.

I like hero's layout, I actually thought it was ftp for the first few minutes until my mind realized they were party buttons.

Sorry I haven't responded yet. I wanted to give you guys a well thought out response. I’ve thought about this a lot, and I see 3 underlying factors in your 3-bet sizing, especially out of position.

1. The pot odds you’re laying to take it down
2. The pot and implied odds you’re offering your opponent
3. The % of your stack (and subsequent stack-to-pot ratio on the flop if he calls) you’re raising to


All of these factors are always at play, but depending on the 3-bettors’ range, their importance relative to each other changes. Let’s say you 3-bet only AA. The price you’re laying to the pot doesn’t really matter that much. You’re 3-betting purely for value, and you want to get called no matter what he has. The major factors here are #2 and mostly #3. You can deny your opponent correct implied odds if he has a pocket pair by raising to around 7 or 8% of stacks. If you have 200bb, that’s 14-16BB. At 200NL, our opponent raises to $7, we’d want to make it another $28-30 to deny our opponent getting the right implied odds to call with a pocket pair. That assumes 2 big things though. #1 is that we always have AA. This is obviously far from the truth. Deep stacked we shouldn’t be 3-betting OOP too much, but you should be throwing in 3-bets with small pocket pairs, Axs preferably with straight potential, and SCs. These are more likely to flop or turn huge pot hands than AJo, which goes way down in value OOP deep. Even if our range is AA and AK, we’re going to miss so many flops that he’s only occasionally getting action when he flops a set. Assumption #2 is that he actually has a pocket pair. Even if he has the best hand against AA, 76s, he might end up calling too many flop bets with 1 pair hoping we have AK, might bluff if we check the flop to him, and we aren’t necessarily stacking off he makes a flush. So pocket pairs are dangerous for our range of only AA, but SCs are not nearly as dangerous, and require even better implied odds. So the moral of the story is you're never giving as good implied odds as you think in these spots, so that's a pretty minor consideration.

So let’s say we’re raising a much wider range. Now factor #2 doesn’t matter as much, because we aren’t offering much in the way of implied odds. If he wants to go set mining with 22, that benefits us. It really only matters in that we want to offer him sufficiently poor pot odds to let him call and try to outplay us. #1 is the important factor here. Let’s say the CO raises to 7 and we’re in the SB. A pot-sized 3-bet is to 24. We’re risking 23 to win 10. If we raise to 26, we’re risking 25 to win 10. The smaller the better, as long as we’re giving our opponent poor enough pot odds. If we can get away with 24, I’d prefer raising to 24. If your opponents fold significantly more for 26 than for 24, then that might be the best bet sizing.

Now say the button called the CO raise. A pot-sized 3-bet would be 30, and you’d be risking 29 to win 17. This is what’s great about squeeze spots. When the button folded, you were laying 23-10, or 2.3-1. When the button calls, you’re laying 1.7-1. If your hand had 0 value, you’d need to win 70% when the button folds, and only 63% when he calls (but realize that now you need 2 players to fold) That relates to factor #1. For #2, you’re still offering 2-1 pot odds, but worse implied odds since you’re raising 29 instead of 23. This is why I think you can raise a little smaller in squeeze pots. If you raise less than pot, you’re offering better pot odds than before, but still worse implied odds than when the button folds. So I think you can get away with 28 rather than 30. You improve your price to take it down, without offering your opponent a price that’s too appealing.

Playing deep is tougher because position has added value, and your opponent’s pot odds are padded by this added positional value. He can and should call with more hands, not because he can expect to win your stack a lot, but because he can use his position to control the pot, take down some extra pots, lose the min, win the max, etc. This has to do with #3. If at 200NL you 3-bet a CO open from the SB 100bb deep and he calls, you’ll get a pot of 50 and stacks of 174. In the same situation with 200bb stacks, you’d have the same 50 stacks with stacks of 374, for a stack-to-pot ratio of 7.5 rather than 3.5. As a general rule, the bigger the SPR, the more valuable position is. So we need to combat this somehow. If we raise to 26 or 28, we get it down to 6.9 or 6.4. The problem with that is your factor #1 is harmed. Instead of risking 23 to win 10, you’re risking 27 to win 10. Which is more important, your stack to pot ratio, or the odds you’re laying to win the pot? I don’t know. I asked something like this to Krantz in one of his video threads and I think he thinks #1 is more important, that 3-betting to 28 is hurting your price on taking the pot down too much. Since then, I’ve been 3-betting my standard approximately pot-sized amount with deeper stacks and they still do fold a lot. I do think if you're 3-betting a tight range, the price you're laying to the pot is less important, you're offering more implied odds, and would like to have a lower stack-to-pot ratio. So if you 3-bet a tight range OOP 200bb deep, it makes sense to me that should raise a little bigger. If you're still 3-betting more than just AA-QQ, AK-AQ, then 24 seems ok to me.

It’s a tough spot when you do get called, so you should tighten up your range OOP as the stacks get deeper. Reads become even more important. Some players will call everything with 200bb stacks and play fit-or-fold on the flop. Some will go crazy 4-betting and that puts you in a tough spot if you’re 3-betting AQs. So my advice is notice how your opponents respond to 3-bets from other TAGs with deep stacks, and to experiment with different raise sizes. If people are calling every 3-bet to 24 with 200bb stacks, adjust your play either by 3-betting bigger, tightening your 3-betting range, or firing a lot of flop and turn bets. I think that type of planning is way more important than whether or not you make it an extra 1bb.

That was really, really worth waiting for.

Great stuff.

Thanks!

Sorry I haven't responded yet. I wanted to give you guys a well thought out response. I’ve thought about this a lot, and I see 3 underlying factors in your 3-bet sizing, especially out of position.

1. The pot odds you’re laying to take it down
2. The pot and implied odds you’re offering your opponent
3. The % of your stack (and subsequent stack-to-pot ratio on the flop if he calls) you’re raising to


All of these factors are always at play, but depending on the 3-bettors’ range, their importance relative to each other changes. Let’s say you 3-bet only AA. The price you’re laying to the pot doesn’t really matter that much. You’re 3-betting purely for value, and you want to get called no matter what he has. The major factors here are #2 and mostly #3. You can deny your opponent correct implied odds if he has a pocket pair by raising to around 7 or 8% of stacks. If you have 200bb, that’s 14-16BB. At 200NL, our opponent raises to $7, we’d want to make it another $28-30 to deny our opponent getting the right implied odds to call with a pocket pair. That assumes 2 big things though. #1 is that we always have AA. This is obviously far from the truth. Deep stacked we shouldn’t be 3-betting OOP too much, but you should be throwing in 3-bets with small pocket pairs, Axs preferably with straight potential, and SCs. These are more likely to flop or turn huge pot hands than AJo, which goes way down in value OOP deep. Even if our range is AA and AK, we’re going to miss so many flops that he’s only occasionally getting action when he flops a set. Assumption #2 is that he actually has a pocket pair. Even if he has the best hand against AA, 76s, he might end up calling too many flop bets with 1 pair hoping we have AK, might bluff if we check the flop to him, and we aren’t necessarily stacking off he makes a flush. So pocket pairs are dangerous for our range of only AA, but SCs are not nearly as dangerous, and require even better implied odds. So the moral of the story is you're never giving as good implied odds as you think in these spots, so that's a pretty minor consideration.

So let’s say we’re raising a much wider range. Now factor #2 doesn’t matter as much, because we aren’t offering much in the way of implied odds. If he wants to go set mining with 22, that benefits us. It really only matters in that we want to offer him sufficiently poor pot odds to let him call and try to outplay us. #1 is the important factor here. Let’s say the CO raises to 7 and we’re in the SB. A pot-sized 3-bet is to 24. We’re risking 23 to win 10. If we raise to 26, we’re risking 25 to win 10. The smaller the better, as long as we’re giving our opponent poor enough pot odds. If we can get away with 24, I’d prefer raising to 24. If your opponents fold significantly more for 26 than for 24, then that might be the best bet sizing.

Now say the button called the CO raise. A pot-sized 3-bet would be 30, and you’d be risking 29 to win 17. This is what’s great about squeeze spots. When the button folded, you were laying 23-10, or 2.3-1. When the button calls, you’re laying 1.7-1. If your hand had 0 value, you’d need to win 70% when the button folds, and only 63% when he calls (but realize that now you need 2 players to fold) That relates to factor #1. For #2, you’re still offering 2-1 pot odds, but worse implied odds since you’re raising 29 instead of 23. This is why I think you can raise a little smaller in squeeze pots. If you raise less than pot, you’re offering better pot odds than before, but still worse implied odds than when the button folds. So I think you can get away with 28 rather than 30. You improve your price to take it down, without offering your opponent a price that’s too appealing.

Playing deep is tougher because position has added value, and your opponent’s pot odds are padded by this added positional value. He can and should call with more hands, not because he can expect to win your stack a lot, but because he can use his position to control the pot, take down some extra pots, lose the min, win the max, etc. This has to do with #3. If at 200NL you 3-bet a CO open from the SB 100bb deep and he calls, you’ll get a pot of 50 and stacks of 174. In the same situation with 200bb stacks, you’d have the same 50 stacks with stacks of 374, for a stack-to-pot ratio of 7.5 rather than 3.5. As a general rule, the bigger the SPR, the more valuable position is. So we need to combat this somehow. If we raise to 26 or 28, we get it down to 6.9 or 6.4. The problem with that is your factor #1 is harmed. Instead of risking 23 to win 10, you’re risking 27 to win 10. Which is more important, your stack to pot ratio, or the odds you’re laying to win the pot? I don’t know. I asked something like this to Krantz in one of his video threads and I think he thinks #1 is more important, that 3-betting to 28 is hurting your price on taking the pot down too much. Since then, I’ve been 3-betting my standard approximately pot-sized amount with deeper stacks and they still do fold a lot. I do think if you're 3-betting a tight range, the price you're laying to the pot is less important, you're offering more implied odds, and would like to have a lower stack-to-pot ratio. So if you 3-bet a tight range OOP 200bb deep, it makes sense to me that should raise a little bigger. If you're still 3-betting more than just AA-QQ, AK-AQ, then 24 seems ok to me.

It’s a tough spot when you do get called, so you should tighten up your range OOP as the stacks get deeper. Reads become even more important. Some players will call everything with 200bb stacks and play fit-or-fold on the flop. Some will go crazy 4-betting and that puts you in a tough spot if you’re 3-betting AQs. So my advice is notice how your opponents respond to 3-bets from other TAGs with deep stacks, and to experiment with different raise sizes. If people are calling every 3-bet to 24 with 200bb stacks, adjust your play either by 3-betting bigger, tightening your 3-betting range, or firing a lot of flop and turn bets. I think that type of planning is way more important than whether or not you make it an extra 1bb.

Sir i thank you very mucho for this!!!
As for me after seing this video (i'am fish hehehe, so mucho to learn still) i kinda "woke-up" and started checking my stats in HManager. Ok i'll explain (mostly to myself i guess, lol).
When i play and i see someone limping i 3BET HIM!! Now that ain't 3betting sir you might say, and i ain't. Thing is that i after watching some video's i like the concept TO MUCH WITHOUT HAVING IT ANY MERITS FOR AN EARLY LIMPER .....Soooooooooo i looked up how much i was "3betting/re-raising" and with how mucho. and ik "3bet/re-raised" a limper InPosition for about 6x the blinds!!!
Please lol me, flame away but i think i have just found a big leak of myself!?!
THANK YOU GUYS!!!

020sicario020
:-)