Why do people have SCs in their preflop polarized 3betting range?

Leath WLeath W Red Chipper Posts: 51 ✭✭
I’ve noticed that many polarized 3bet ranges have bluff hands like low and mid suited connectors. I often wonder what the reasoning is here, given that these hands perform much better in deep SPR pots and if someone calls your 3bet the pot can get very big very quickly.
Especially in the BB OOP vs a BTN open I’d be very uncertain about how to proceed with draws. I feel like I’m missing important tools that I’d have in similar situations in a non 3bet pot where X/R the flop with decent draws to counter the positional disadvantage would be much more affordable.

If I knew my opponent is capped and unlikely to play for stacks I guess I'd still long ball him and raise reasonably often but I'd like to understand what a "default" strategy against an unknown would look like here.

Comments

  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭✭
    Let's say that you only 3bet TT+, all AK, AQs and an occasional A5s or something like that. Come up with your own range against a specific opponent, but you get the idea: only the best of hands with one or two others mixed it.

    Let's say that I call.

    Let's then say that the flop has one or two cards at a ten or higher. You cbet, I fold, easy game for me.

    Now let's say that the flop is A96r. You cbet, and I check-raise. You're looking at a range that didn't likely smash this flop, but my calling range could easily include 99, 66, 87, AJ, AT... you have no idea where your range is against my check-raise. Unless you have AA, AK, or AQ -- a small part of your 3bet range -- or unless I bluff far too often, then you have to fold.

    Now let's say that the flop is 986 with two cards of the same suit or a monotone flop. You're likely checking because you recognize that there's a good chance that you're behind. I have a real opportunity to steal this pot from you regardless of my hand.

    Now, let's say that, from time to time but often enough that I believe that it's part of your 3bet range, YOU have, say, 87s other suited connectors or even a small pair (66) once in a while. It makes it much harder for me to try to push you off a flop that favors me since I'm less confident that I'm really ahead: this could be the time that you 3bet with 66 or 98 or whatever and hit the flop that usually favors me. Now, what do I do?

    Against most opponents, who play fit-or-fold or just look at their hand strength, I would really worry about expanding your 3betting range too much (or I would 3bet mercilessly and cbet mercilessly). Against opponents who focus on board texture, though, you need to be able to represent that your range can cover any possible board texture. Otherwise, my cards become almost irrelevant -- I can just play the board to know when to fold or raise.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,677 ✭✭✭✭
    To resume @moishetreats : "Board coverage"
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,600 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Because the bottom of the pole is endless and 83o still doesn't appeal to most players, for some reason.
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 224 ✭✭✭
    When you ask this question, what are you considering as the alternative to suited connectors? Are you thinking you'd be better served by using suited A or K blocker type hands? Or lesser broadway hands, like AJ or KJs? Or complete trash, like T5o?

    There's no rule written in stone that says your 3-bet range must consist of exactly JJ+, AK, A5s, and 65s-87s. Different stack depths, opponent tendencies, and hero play style/strategy/image should influence how often and with what hands to 3-bet. If you're in BB and someone is opening any two cards from the button, but folding to 3-bets 95% of the time, then you should absolutely 3-bet any two cards. Against some opponents, you may choose to 3-bet only value hands. You may decide your bottom pole contains a ton of different combinations that you flat or fold 90% of the time, but 3-bet the other 10.

    Some reasons low suited connectors make a good possible choice for a 3-bet hand though, are post-flop playability, which goes hand in hand with board coverage (as mentioned), as well as being an easy fold if you happen to get 4-bet.
  • Brian BBrian B Red Chipper Posts: 7 ✭✭
    If we are 3betting a poled range we are assuming our opponents will be folding some portion of the time. If not we would be 3betting depolarized and attacking our opponent differently. 3betting hands that are not good enough to flat ie 56s,67s etc. allows us to get our opponent to fold out better holdings. When we do get called our range will have plenty of strong hands but also more board coverage. So we are not always sitting there with an overpair on a 568 board. As far as postflop goes, thinking multiple streets ahead seems to give me a clearer thought process during the hand. Being able to put our opponents on a range will make it much easier to play our hands postflop whether we are in position or not. As far as button vs blinds, i like to use more Ax suited hands because of blocker value for my bluff 3bets as well as suited broadway cards. When in position and deeper stacked the value of suited connectors and gappers rises as we have more flexibility with the lines we decide to run.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,677 ✭✭✭✭
    Brian B wrote: »
    3betting hands that are not good enough to flat ie 56s,67s etc. allows us to get our opponent to fold out better holdings.
    What you gain with board coverage, you lose in blocker ability

  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭✭
    A very important point that is overlooked is that those small/med SC will provide board coverage on the least common boards in NLHE. So while you are trying to add some combos that will be useful in very rare case, you sacrifice equity overall with your range.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 10
    Instead of focusing on board coverage on boards that will hit very rarely you should ask yourself how and why you should construct your 3B range a certain way. When the opponent folds a ton to 3B go poled and when he don’t go merged prioritizing equity with high cards holdings.

    Some will certainly scream heresy for not covering boards like 567 for example but they forget that hitting a straight is very very rare and on those boards you’ll have ton of value with over pairs and big suited connectors when the boards is 2T or you improve on turn for the 4flush. You’ll still get plenty of calls on high turn cards also where a Kx will very often win at SD versus multiple busted hands or worse pairs.
  • Leath WLeath W Red Chipper Posts: 51 ✭✭
    Okay so I do understand the argument for board coverage but also that I'm sacrificing equity with hands like 67s and since 3bet pots have a shallower SPR I think that raw equity should be more important than playability?

    So to answer Roblivion's question
    Roblivion wrote: »
    Are you thinking you'd be better served by using suited A or K blocker type hands?

    Yup, these would've been my picks. Of course I adjust my ranges based on my opponent's tendencies but against people you don't have many reads on (except maybe that they're opening loosely) I think I'd rather raise with suited AX and KX. Like Adam said, hitting a straight is very rare, and I'm much more likely to hit something like a weak pair or draw that I'm not really willing to play for stacks for. And given that a 3bet pot is inherently larger I think it's even easier to lose control over the pot, especially OOP.

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That's fine but you're the one who mentioned being polarized. So what does that mean? You're looking for worse hands than 65s?
  • Leath WLeath W Red Chipper Posts: 51 ✭✭
    edited October 11
    No no I think 65s is definitely polarized enough but I was just wondering why people would pick a hand like that with little equity but good playability over a hand like K5s that has twice the equity but less playability, in a 3bet pot with low SPR where raw equity is more important than playability.

    Not thinking this is set in stone or anything, I just saw these hands in many polarized 3bet ranges and I'd like to understand why people put them in there. So far I've learned in this thread that one argument in favour of it is board coverage, though it seems to definitely be a trade-off and I'm not convinced that it's worth it unless you have reads that would imply otherwise.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Leath W wrote: »
    No no I think 65s is definitely polarized enough but I was just wondering why people would pick a hand like that with little equity but good playability over a hand like K5s that has twice the equity

    How are you looking up equity? You certainly shouldn't be comparing 65 to K5 directly, because you're not facing a raise against K5.

    Against a range of 99+,ATs+,KJs+,AJo+,KQo, 65s has higher equity than K5s.

  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 224 ✭✭✭
    Leath W wrote: »
    No no I think 65s is definitely polarized enough but I was just wondering why people would pick a hand like that with little equity but good playability over a hand like K5s that has twice the equity but less playability, in a 3bet pot with low SPR where raw equity is more important than playability.

    You should consider the effect of stack depth. At 100 BBs or lower, playability is less important and I would probably prefer to 3-bet the K5s. At 200 BBs or more, after 3-betting SPR will still be pretty high, so you will want a hand with more playability - here, I would prefer 65s.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭✭
    @Leath W
    I do said that hitting a straight is rare but what is more important is that those boards type, the medium cards boards where a straight is possible, are very rare. So being concerned about having or not 76s for example in our 3B range at 100BB deep shouldn’t be a dilemma really. Medium/Small SC should start to be more appealing when stacks gets deeper.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,677 ✭✭✭✭
    Roblivion wrote: »
    Leath W wrote: »
    No no I think 65s is definitely polarized enough but I was just wondering why people would pick a hand like that with little equity but good playability over a hand like K5s that has twice the equity but less playability, in a 3bet pot with low SPR where raw equity is more important than playability.

    You should consider the effect of stack depth. At 100 BBs or lower, playability is less important and I would probably prefer to 3-bet the K5s. At 200 BBs or more, after 3-betting SPR will still be pretty high, so you will want a hand with more playability - here, I would prefer 65s.
    SPR and stack depth aren't the same... In my last 2/2$ game, the standard open-raise was 18-24$. And it wasn't rare at all that the open-raise was up to 30-34$ and squeeze against limper 40-50$. You can play 200BB deep, but on such table, your SPR sinks.

    Still, what is important is not SPR, but the link between SPR, your range, your perceived range, and your strategy.
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 224 ✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    Roblivion wrote: »
    Leath W wrote: »
    No no I think 65s is definitely polarized enough but I was just wondering why people would pick a hand like that with little equity but good playability over a hand like K5s that has twice the equity but less playability, in a 3bet pot with low SPR where raw equity is more important than playability.

    You should consider the effect of stack depth. At 100 BBs or lower, playability is less important and I would probably prefer to 3-bet the K5s. At 200 BBs or more, after 3-betting SPR will still be pretty high, so you will want a hand with more playability - here, I would prefer 65s.
    SPR and stack depth aren't the same... In my last 2/2$ game, the standard open-raise was 18-24$. And it wasn't rare at all that the open-raise was up to 30-34$ and squeeze against limper 40-50$. You can play 200BB deep, but on such table, your SPR sinks.

    Still, what is important is not SPR, but the link between SPR, your range, your perceived range, and your strategy.

    Well certainly that's true. What I'm getting at is, the more "runway" you have in a hand, the more important playability is and the less important hot/cold equity is.
  • Leath WLeath W Red Chipper Posts: 51 ✭✭
    yes 3bets in a pot with bigger effective stacks like 150+ bb are definitely worth considering these 45s-67s kind of hands I imagine, also because if you do hit big it's reasonably disguised and has some good implied odds.
    i automatically assumed 100 bb stacks for everyone at the table as if it were a fresh game where everyone just sat down with max buy-in but in a non-vacuum obviously the deeper stacks need to be accounted for.

    it did surprise me that 65s is like 1% equity ahead of K5s vs a range of 99+,ATs+,KQs,QJs,AQo+,KQo though.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭✭✭
    For one thing, there are a lot of kings in that range to be dominated by. If you remove the kings and change the range to be

    AA,QQ-99,AQs-ATs,AQo-AJo

    then K5s has the upper hand. But obviously kings are going to be a big part of a standard high card opening range. If the opening range gets wider and looser, there are fewer kings on average (they get diluted in the range), and K5s starts doing better again. For example

    55+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A9o+,KJo+,QJo
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭✭
    Thoughts on using trashy off suit blocker hands along with medium SC's? I would often would work in hands like K4o and A4o as squeeze hands from the blinds vs late opens, and treat them as AK/AQ,KQs betting pattern, due to the fact that if I do make a TP type hands, opponents likely won't share made TP's with me, and B. The someone OK card removal effect of having a K or and A.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,600 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well all of this just begs the question, why are we three betting in the first place, but anyway Jake, the issue is how much you dilute your over all equity with those hands. In other words, you open the door to frequency issues and potentially losing control of your range. A few of those hands won't matter, but more than a few will.
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭✭
    Yeah...I worked it down to about 20% now compared to normal value equity. I also will only raise my diamond SC 56-98 as my SC bluffs. I think when I was doing it live I had wayyyy too many junk ones in there, that's why I would smash the game for the first 1-3 hours, and then punt stacks later, as people just figured out that "man this guy is 3-betting too much. Time for some light call downs".
  • AceFromSpaceKKAceFromSpaceKK Red Chipper Posts: 237 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Well all of this just begs the question, why are we three betting in the first place, but anyway Jake, the issue is how much you dilute your over all equity with those hands. In other words, you open the door to frequency issues and potentially losing control of your range. A few of those hands won't matter, but more than a few will.

    Which %age do you consider as 'more than a few'?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,600 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't assign percentages no one truly understands except in the most contrived circumstances with the most powerful simulator. To understand ranges and betting, look into trends and efficiencies and where you should be on the spectrum of them.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file