3-betting range

Stavros_GeorgiadisStavros_Georgiadis GreeceRed Chipper Posts: 11 ✭✭
Do you prefer to 3-bet (or 3-bet squeeze ) with a suited hand, or its unsuited variation?
For example KdQd or KdQs?
We assume that all other parameters are the same.

Comments

  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,095 ✭✭✭✭
    Suited in position, off suit out of position. Stack sizes also matter.
  • ericmwhiteericmwhite Red Chipper Posts: 23 ✭✭
    edited January 5
    Ninjah wrote: »
    Suited in position, off suit out of position. Stack sizes also matter.

    Why do you prefer off suit OOP?

  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,095 ✭✭✭✭
    ericmwhite wrote: »
    Ninjah wrote: »
    Suited in position, off suit out of position. Stack sizes also matter.

    Why do you prefer off suit OOP?

    Suited hands realize their equity better which makes them better candidates to play in position. If I'm 3-betting off suit hands, it's usually to pick up the pot right away as a squeeze or against someone who has a high fold to 3b frequency.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,432 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ericmwhite wrote: »
    Why do you prefer off suit OOP?

    Off suit does not perform better than suited OOP, hopefully that wasn't what you were asking though....

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,465 -
    Ninjah wrote: »
    ericmwhite wrote: »
    Ninjah wrote: »
    Suited in position, off suit out of position. Stack sizes also matter.

    Why do you prefer off suit OOP?

    Suited hands realize their equity better which makes them better candidates to play in position. If I'm 3-betting off suit hands, it's usually to pick up the pot right away as a squeeze or against someone who has a high fold to 3b frequency.

    That was always my intuition, but IIRC in The Course Ed has them reversed.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,465 -
    Just checked. Against a steal Ed 3-bets KJs and calls KJo. KQ is a 3-bet against all steals irrespective of color.

    I've never really understood this for the reasons outlined above.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 334 ✭✭✭
    Does Ed 3-bet KJs for value then against a steal?
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 334 ✭✭✭
    edited January 6
    In my mind then, there are two scenarios:

    1) The suited version is good enough to 3-bet for value whereas the offsuit version is not. In that case I'm 3-betting the suited version instead of the offsuit version. I might call or fold the offsuit version but usually call.

    2) The suited version is not good enough to 3-bet for value, but good enough to call. The offsuit version is not good enough to call. In this case I am not 3-betting the suited version but might 3-bet the offsuit version as a bluff.

    So it depends :)
  • Stavros_GeorgiadisStavros_Georgiadis GreeceRed Chipper Posts: 11 ✭✭
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    In my mind then, there are two scenarios:

    1) The suited version is good enough to 3-bet for value whereas the offsuit version is not. In that case I'm 3-betting the suited version instead of the offsuit version. I might call or fold the offsuit version but usually call.

    2) The suited version is not good enough to 3-bet for value, but good enough to call. The offsuit version is not good enough to call. In this case I am not 3-betting the suited version but might 3-bet the offsuit version as a bluff.

    So it depends :)

    Now I am more confused 🤔 The 2 logics contradict each other. Or is it player-dependent, position dependent, etc?

    (PS: if it matters I only play live cash games)
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 334 ✭✭✭
    edited January 6
    Indeed it is dependent of those two things mostly.

    For example, if a loose aggressive player opens in the SB, I 3-bet AJs from the BB for value but call AJo. This would be the first scenario, where the suited version is strong enough to 3-bet for value but not the offsuit version.

    Another example:
    I'm in the BB and a reg UTG opens, folds to me. Now I'd want to call KQs but 3-bet bluff KQo. This would be the second scenario, where the suited version is not good enough to 3-bet for value (but strong enough to call), but the offsuit version is not good enough to call, but I instead use as a 3-bet bluff.

    Conclusion:
    You can't have 1 rule where you always 3-bet the suited version and 3-bet the offsuit one in my mind. Sometimes you want to 3-bet the suited version for value but call or fold the offsuit version. Other times you want to just call the suited version (because it's not strong enough to 3-bet for value), and 3-bet bluff the offsuit version (because it's not strong enough to call). It is indeed mostly player- and position-dependent.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,465 -
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Does Ed 3-bet KJs for value then against a steal?

    He 3-bets it, and since his 3-bet range is polarized I guess you'd say he was doing so for value.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭✭
    This is an empty debate to me...

    There is no "pure" 3bet range or squeeze range where o or s would be better. This depends on your strategy as a whole and the specific situation.
    It makes no sense, to me, to discuss things in a vacuum. Or just use a solver.
  • Michael EMichael E Red Chipper Posts: 90 ✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    This is an empty debate to me...

    There is no "pure" 3bet range or squeeze range where o or s would be better. This depends on your strategy as a whole and the specific situation.
    It makes no sense, to me, to discuss things in a vacuum. Or just use a solver.

    I was gonna say something similar.
    It depends entirely on who am I 3betting and why.
    If I know a guy will call 3bets WIDE, then it doesn't matter, either one will work.

    As a general rule...there is one thing. In real scenario's...you have to play poker.

Leave a Comment

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