3-betting wider versus smaller opens

LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 382 ✭✭✭
With all else being equal, should we employ a wider 3-betting range if the open raise we face is of a smaller size?

One thing that comes to mind to me is that the SPR after the 3-bet is called will be higher if villan opens smaller, so villain can defend wider. As a result we can expand our value 3-bet range (and if we want to be polarized and balanced also our 3-bet bluffing range).

Or should we negate villain's ability to defend wider by 3-betting larger relative to the opening size and not change our range at all?

Comments

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭
    Smth you should specific is smaller -> to what ?

    A) If smaller -> than V's usual opening bet sizing
    Then there an exploit here: either V is slow playing a monster or (more often) try to see a cheap flop with a meh holding. I'd use this bet sizing tell to raise with an expanded range - maybe even almost ATC depending on the read.

    B) If smaller -> than the opening bet sizes of the other players
    Then I might not expand my 3bet range that much - if only I do. When V opens smaller than the other (like 3bb compared to the usual 5-8bb opening bet sizes at live low stakes), I see 2 sub-scenarii:
    B1) V just naturally opens with a smaller sizing. His range is as wide / tight as expected in the field. Then I'd not expand my 3bet range.
    B2) V uses a smaller range because he opens with a wide(r) range (than the field). Then I'd expand my 3bet range (range) since there are many more med and meh combos to fight.
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 255 ✭✭✭
    Well you just asked a very big question IMO. I would say that raise sizing takes a back seat to both stack sizes and V's opening frequency when doing this analysis. You did mention SPR in the original post, but almost more as an afterthought rather than the main focus.

    Now, you can think about a couple extreme examples. What if:

    1. V raises to 2x with 50 BB behind.
    2. V raises to 5x with 50 BB behind.
    3. V raises to 2x with 500 BB behind.
    4. V raises to 5x with 500 BB behind.

    In the first two examples, calling will lead to an SPR somewhere between 5 and 10. In the third and fourth, it's more like 50 and 100. But if you were to 3-bet, the SPR in the first scenarios (especially the second one) shrinks up to the point of commitment, whereas the third and fourth still leave plenty of runway for later streets. This illustrates that we can 3-bet wider over a 5x open at 500 BB then we can over a 2x at 50BB because there is more play left.

    As I mentioned, I also think the villain's opening range is very important to consider when deciding to 3-bet. If the villain is opening too many hands, of course you should 3-bet more liberally. If we have a V with 50 BB and he's opening too often, I'd be more inclined to 3-bet a lot against the 2x open than the 5x open, because the latter is more apt to give him a springboard to 4-bet shove whereas 2x still leaves some stack behind. If our V is opening far too few hands, 3-betting more is not the play regardless of the sizing. However, if they're opening only JJ+, AK to the 2x sizing you can flat a ton more hands on the cheap.

    From a defensive, BUT vs BB perspective, the smaller open size absolutely means you will need to continue with more of your range, but as for how exactly to continue (flat or 3-bet), I believe that should be a function of stack depth and V opening frequency.

    Just my longwinded thoughts.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,760 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • EurocratEurocrat Red Chipper Posts: 13 ✭✭
    Thanks for opening this thread, @LeChiffre
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 382 ✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    Smth you should specific is smaller -> to what ?

    A) If smaller -> than V's usual opening bet sizing
    Then there an exploit here: either V is slow playing a monster or (more often) try to see a cheap flop with a meh holding. I'd use this bet sizing tell to raise with an expanded range - maybe even almost ATC depending on the read.

    B) If smaller -> than the opening bet sizes of the other players
    Then I might not expand my 3bet range that much - if only I do. When V opens smaller than the other (like 3bb compared to the usual 5-8bb opening bet sizes at live low stakes), I see 2 sub-scenarii:
    B1) V just naturally opens with a smaller sizing. His range is as wide / tight as expected in the field. Then I'd not expand my 3bet range.
    B2) V uses a smaller range because he opens with a wide(r) range (than the field). Then I'd expand my 3bet range (range) since there are many more med and meh combos to fight.

    Option A is not relevant since "all else is equal". So the opening range does not change with his sizing, and his smaller open does not mean anything. I just want to know, facing the same opponent with the same circumstances (stack sizes and opening ranges), do we widen our 3-betting range if he opens smaller? I don't necessarily mean within one session, it's purely theoretical.

    B1 seems to be the one I'm interested in. His range is exactly as expected, but it's just his sizing that's different. You say you don't expand your 3-betting range, but why is that?
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 382 ✭✭✭
    Roblivion wrote: »
    In the first two examples, calling will lead to an SPR somewhere between 5 and 10. In the third and fourth, it's more like 50 and 100. But if you were to 3-bet, the SPR in the first scenarios (especially the second one) shrinks up to the point of commitment, whereas the third and fourth still leave plenty of runway for later streets. This illustrates that we can 3-bet wider over a 5x open at 500 BB then we can over a 2x at 50BB because there is more play left.

    This makes a lot of sense to me.
    Roblivion wrote: »
    As I mentioned, I also think the villain's opening range is very important to consider when deciding to 3-bet.

    Absolutely, but that's not really my question. I want to know, with everything else being equal (so also villain's opening range), does his sizing imply anything meaningful in terms of how wide we 3-bet? You seem to have answered that question above.

  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 382 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    As we discussed in the other thread, no.

    @Red said the same, but why exactly doesn't the eventual higher SPR cause us too 3-bet wider?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,760 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Inevitably, size = range, so a lot of this is discussion may be misleading.

    I'm not sure if Red said the same. He went through several scenarios.

    The key words in your challenge are "all things being equal," it seems to me. In other words, we start against an unknown, rational actor with a presumably reasonable strategy, all at some relative stack size that we won't switch around, if only for the sake of the argument. Let's say 150 bbs to please everyone. If we make it deeper, the size is influenced; smaller, it should be obvious a wide range can't go bigger or even be supported.

    Our opponent risks 2 or 2.X bbs, close to the minimum from LP. Therefore we risk more and more to win less and less when he choses this strategy. If you reraise wider and bigger, you're suggesting we:

    1) bring ourselves closer to showdown with an increasingly worse equity profile, while
    2) allowing him to choose which hands to defend, while
    3) he continues to put in the least dead money with his folds, while
    3) you put more and more dead money into the folds and bottom calls against his fourbets.

    By risking less, our minimal raiser is keeping himself from being leveraged by you in a standard scenario.

    It's very easy to counter my argument by making range assumptions, but i am attempting to set that aside.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 382 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Inevitably, size = range, so a lot of this is discussion may be misleading.

    I'm not sure if Red said the same. He went through several scenarios.

    The key words in your challenge are "all things being equal," it seems to me. In other words, we start against an unknown, rational actor with a presumably reasonable strategy, all at some relative stack size that we won't switch around, if only for the sake of the argument. Let's say 150 bbs to please everyone. If we make it deeper, the size is influenced; smaller, it should be obvious a wide range can't go bigger or even be supported.

    Our opponent risks 2 or 2.X bbs, close to the minimum from LP. Therefore we risk more and more to win less and less when he choses this strategy. If you reraise wider and bigger, you're suggesting we:

    1) bring ourselves closer to showdown with an increasingly worse equity profile, while
    2) allowing him to choose which hands to defend, while
    3) he continues to put in the least dead money with his folds, while
    3) you put more and more dead money into the folds and bottom calls against his fourbets.

    By risking less, our minimal raiser is keeping himself from being leveraged by you in a standard scenario.

    It's very easy to counter my argument by making range assumptions, but i am attempting to set that aside.

    Legend.

    Points 1, 3 and 4 make a lot of sense.

    Point 2 however... don't really understand what you mean. Villain always can choose which hands to defend, no matter how wide/large we 3-bet, right?
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭✭
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Option A is not relevant since "all else is equal". So the opening range does not change with his sizing, and his smaller open does not mean anything. I just want to know, facing the same opponent with the same circumstances (stack sizes and opening ranges), do we widen our 3-betting range if he opens smaller? I don't necessarily mean within one session, it's purely theoretical.

    B1 seems to be the one I'm interested in. His range is exactly as expected, but it's just his sizing that's different. You say you don't expand your 3-betting range, but why is that?

    All things being equal we should 3B more often vs larger opening sizes.


  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,760 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Right what i am saying is that he loses more and more of the bottom of his range and/or worst playability hands. Meaning the large 3 bet with wider value loses more postflop.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Red wrote: »
    Smth you should specific is smaller -> to what ?

    A) If smaller -> than V's usual opening bet sizing
    Then there an exploit here: either V is slow playing a monster or (more often) try to see a cheap flop with a meh holding. I'd use this bet sizing tell to raise with an expanded range - maybe even almost ATC depending on the read.

    B) If smaller -> than the opening bet sizes of the other players
    Then I might not expand my 3bet range that much - if only I do. When V opens smaller than the other (like 3bb compared to the usual 5-8bb opening bet sizes at live low stakes), I see 2 sub-scenarii:
    B1) V just naturally opens with a smaller sizing. His range is as wide / tight as expected in the field. Then I'd not expand my 3bet range.
    B2) V uses a smaller range because he opens with a wide(r) range (than the field). Then I'd expand my 3bet range (range) since there are many more med and meh combos to fight.

    Option A is not relevant since "all else is equal". So the opening range does not change with his sizing, and his smaller open does not mean anything. I just want to know, facing the same opponent with the same circumstances (stack sizes and opening ranges), do we widen our 3-betting range if he opens smaller? I don't necessarily mean within one session, it's purely theoretical.

    B1 seems to be the one I'm interested in. His range is exactly as expected, but it's just his sizing that's different. You say you don't expand your 3-betting range, but why is that?

    The difference between B1 and B2 lays in the ability of Villain of, as said by Persuadeo, following "size = range" - aka B1 isn't able, B2 is.

    Persuadeo developped B2 scenario, so I won't develop it further.

    In the B1 scenario, Villain has the same opening range as any other from the field, except he opens lower. 3betting more here because the size is smaller makes no sense. If V doesn't have a wider range when he opens 2.X bb (as he should), then there is no reason to 3bet wider, because his range has not more junk it we could target. Our 3bet range strategy shall not fit his sizing, but the range we attribute him - despite/without consideration of his open bet sizing.

    Now about SPR: I'd not over-use it in such thinking process. Because, as said by persuadeo, by raising "too often", you're creating a lot of (aggro) dead money and you're facing a stronger range / the top of his opening range aka with lower equity.
    I'd more use SPR as a guideline for postflop play; but not raising pre trying to create a "convenient" flop SPR. Again, my preflop3bet range (thus 3bet %) will fit his open-range, not his open sizing.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 382 ✭✭✭
    Cheers, thanks fellas.

Leave a Comment

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