adjusting 3bet strategy against tight openers

Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
edited July 1 in Online Poker Hands
PokerStars - $0.10 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 5 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (BTN): 102 BB
SB: 102.7 BB
BB: 141.1 BB
UTG: 93.9 BB
CO: 211.9 BB [vpip:18 pfr:7 3bet:1 AFq:40 sample size:1,541]

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has Q :DIAMOND: K :SPADE:

fold, CO raises to 3 BB, Hero calls 3 BB, fold, BB calls 2 BB

so my default strategy would include KQo in my 3bet strategy as part of a polarized range.

against a player with these kinds of states, it would be fine to adjust to using a linear 3betting stategy of AK/QQ+ right? or would you typically still want to include some 3bet bluffs in there and if so which hands are you using?
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    His pfr raise range looks something like {AA-TT, AKo-AQo, KQo, AKs-ATs,KQs-KJs, QJs}. I think the strat you suggest would be fine, and if you notice his fold to 3b % is higher than it should be you can probably include 77+, maybe some suited connectors
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,503 ✭✭✭✭
    Ori13_TTV wrote: »
    so my default strategy would include KQo in my 3bet strategy as part of a polarized range.

    against a player with these kinds of states, it would be fine to adjust to using a linear 3betting stategy of AK/QQ+ right? or would you typically still want to include some 3bet bluffs in there and if so which hands are you using?

    It is a good question that I often think about - how far should I really take my exploits?

    KQo in solverland is a mix between 3b/call vs normal CO RFI.

    vs a huge NIT I would just use your BB v UTG(full ring) defense range since that is the range you are facing. So you will be cold calling and 3B much tighter than normal. So basically you will exploit this guy by overfolding your BB.

  • PjotrskiPjotrski Red Chipper Posts: 15 ✭✭
    blindraise wrote: »
    His pfr raise range looks something like {AA-TT, AKo-AQo, KQo, AKs-ATs,KQs-KJs, QJs}. I think the strat you suggest would be fine, and if you notice his fold to 3b % is higher than it should be you can probably include 77+, maybe some suited connectors

    Sets are decent to setmine against nits, so I wouldn't like to use 77-JJ for that. Maybe the lower pairs.

    I'd rather use suited K2-K9s to 3bet a nit and confirm whether he folds to 3bets a lot (as most do). Then he'll have more Ax without a K that he isn't willing to call or 4bet with.

    Especially the medium pairs are good in position on 9 high flops or lower. Villain will have no pair on those flops at 55-80% of the time.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    Pjotrski wrote: »
    Sets are decent to setmine against nits, so I wouldn't like to use 77-JJ for that. Maybe the lower pairs.

    Sets are decent to setmine? I'm not sure what that means.
    Pjotrski wrote: »
    I'd rather use suited K2-K9s to 3bet a nit and confirm whether he folds to 3bets a lot (as most do). Then he'll have more Ax without a K that he isn't willing to call or 4bet with.

    If you have stats and decent sample size like ops you don't really need to confirm anything. 3b-ing K2s-K9s is a bit light imo, but if you expect sb and bb to overfold I guess it's alright. One of the problems with attacking nits light is other players will eventually catch on and respond.
    Pjotrski wrote: »
    Especially the medium pairs are good in position on 9 high flops or lower. Villain will have no pair on those flops at 55-80% of the time.

    To be profitable we have to hope for a 9 high or lower flop and then still hope they don't have overpairs. That's asking for alot
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    edited July 2
    blindraise wrote: »
    Pjotrski wrote: »
    Sets are decent to setmine against nits, so I wouldn't like to use 77-JJ for that. Maybe the lower pairs.

    Sets are decent to setmine? I'm not sure what that means.

    I think its easy enough to infer that what he meant was 'pocket pairs are decent to setmine with'

    i think you both have a point, i think youre right that if their fold to 3bet % is higher than it should be we can still 3bet pretty wide against them, but i definitely agree with pjotrski that i would rather flat with most mid and low pocket pairs because it keeps the SPR high to maximize implied odds when you hit your set, especially against a strong/robust villain range that is going to pay you off a lot.

    interesting point pjotrski has about including weak Kx in the 3bet bluffing range because of the way it interacts with villains range, thats something i never thought about before. that being said, im not sure if i agree with using those hands as bluffs, but its definitely worth considering carefully before dismissing the idea
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    If you're using your mid pps to strictly setmine you're losing ev, especially if you can confidently define your opps 4b/3b call range
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    blindraise wrote: »
    If you're using your mid pps to strictly setmine you're losing ev, especially if you can confidently define your opps 4b/3b call range

    do you have any evidence to support that?
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    w1n8e1uva8p2.png

    2l2unikro38e.png

    they do pretty well as a flat, but i dont have any data on 3betting with them
  • ulysses27ulysses27 Red Chipper Posts: 114 ✭✭
    I think it's important to look at v PFR from CO not just they're overall PFR and also how loose are SB and BB and how likely are they to squeeze. The hand you have is just one part of the equation. If v folds at 60% or higher and the other positions are tight then your 3bet range can be wide.
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    ulysses27 wrote: »
    I think it's important to look at v PFR from CO not just they're overall PFR and also how loose are SB and BB and how likely are they to squeeze. The hand you have is just one part of the equation. If v folds at 60% or higher and the other positions are tight then your 3bet range can be wide.

    great point! thanks
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    Is 1k hands a large enough sample size to support your idea? I'm not sure
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    edited July 3
    blindraise wrote: »
    Is 1k hands a large enough sample size to support your idea? I'm not sure

    its much better support than youve offered for your idea

    it also takes fewer samples when you are filtering for specific situations because you cut out all the marginal and plain unprofitable situations that you would get in a normal unfiltered sample. as you can see on the graph resulting from the filter, the swings are pretty small around a clearly defined trend line rather than being all over the place
  • PjotrskiPjotrski Red Chipper Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited July 3
    blindraise wrote: »
    If you're using your mid pps to strictly setmine you're losing ev, especially if you can confidently define your opps 4b/3b call range

    To be more clear, I didn't mean to purely setmine. Calling pairs make sure you have something with showdown value when villain's (nit) range (and often playing style) is usually quite straight forward.

    If they give up you can sometimes check it down, or bet and make them fold. If they continue then you give up unless you hit the set. Whether you give up on the flop or turn obviously depends on cbet % and texture.

    I'd rather 3bet something against someone that is either folding or 4betting with something that is not playable in my calling range. Or the other way around, why 3bet something as a bluf that is very playable when calling (at least IP).
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    edited July 3
    Pjotrski wrote: »
    blindraise wrote: »
    If you're using your mid pps to strictly setmine you're losing ev, especially if you can confidently define your opps 4b/3b call range

    To be more clear, I didn't mean to purely setmine. Calling pairs make sure you have something with showdown value when villain's (nit) range (and often playing style) is usually quite straight forward. If they give up you can sometimes check it down, or bet and make them fold.

    I'd rather 3bet something against someone that is either folding or 4betting with something that is not playable in my calling range. Or the other way around, why 3bet something as a bluf that is very playable when calling (at least IP).

    exactly, mid pocket pairs has a high degree of playability postflop with a pretty polarized equity distribution across different flop textures. id recommend blindraise revisit the fundamentals of bluffing incentives when it comes to choosing hands to bluff with. the point of bluffing is to make your opponent fold. if your opponent folds, it doesnt matter if you have AA or 72o; because your opponent folded, the showdown equity of your hand is irrelevant. I would rather 3bet bluff with 72o than 88... i wouldnt because frequencies matter and having some backdoor equity is important too, but theres more to playing preflop than how much raw equity our hands have.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    You would consider mid pp a bluff in this situation? I wouldn't. I'd consider them a bluff if I was 4bing against a range like QQ+, AQs+, but I'd be 3bing for value and looking to play for stacks post depending on texture/action.

    I think preflop actions are simplified when facing nits since their range is so defined, that as action progresses you can narrow their range to 1 or 2 hands. That makes equity a big deal especially when facing an opponent that's showdown driven.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    Also your sample size is against all opponents. Not just nits, which is the focus of the thread
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    Also if you're going 3b bluff K2s-K9s against nits why not 3b bluff Ax instead? That would give you better removal/equity
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    edited July 3
    youre 3betting 88 for value against a nit open? what portion of his range are you getting called by that 88 is value against?
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    at this point it seems like youre just being argumentative for the sake of argument. you havent actually been able to support your idea with sound theory or data. im interested in sound solutions, not unsupported ones. being able to narrow your opponents range doesnt actually improve the equity of your hand if your hand is dominated by that range
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    i appreciate your input but not your argumentation, if that makes sense.

    mid pocket pairs is an area that ive already invested a lot of time in studying and im very confident in the idea that those are hands that benefit much more from maximized SPR than they ever could benefit by a good read
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    I'm not going to do your homework for you. If what I said offended you there must be a reason for it. You can take what I suggested and see if there's any light there or you can do whatever else you wish. That's the beauty of poker.
  • PjotrskiPjotrski Red Chipper Posts: 15 ✭✭
    Ori13_TTV wrote: »
    blindraise wrote: »
    Pjotrski wrote: »
    Sets are decent to setmine against nits, so I wouldn't like to use 77-JJ for that. Maybe the lower pairs.

    Sets are decent to setmine? I'm not sure what that means.

    i think you both have a point, i think youre right that if their fold to 3bet % is higher than it should be we can still 3bet pretty wide against them, but i definitely agree with pjotrski that i would rather flat with most mid and low pocket pairs because it keeps the SPR high to maximize implied odds when you hit your set, especially against a strong/robust villain range that is going to pay you off a lot.

    interesting point pjotrski has about including weak Kx in the 3bet bluffing range because of the way it interacts with villains range, thats something i never thought about before. that being said, im not sure if i agree with using those hands as bluffs, but its definitely worth considering carefully before dismissing the idea

    Your reply made me revisit my logic by going through the combinations based on the following.

    Nit raises 88+, ATs+, KTs+ and AQo+ and vs 3bet
    - 4bets: KK+
    - calls: TT+, AKo, AKs
    - folds the rest

    (so clearly the assumption is that nit overfolds to 3bet)

    Then 3betting with a K in our hand will make him fold 63.9% of the time. With an A in our hand 51.3% (and 50.7% with 54 ;) ).

    If he's calling also AJs+ and AQo then 3betting with an Ax is slightly better (49.5%). But then I wonder if we should still be having a polarized range anyway.

    So at least looking at from a direct FE point of view Kx seems better than Ax as a bluff. But hey, always open to other points of view :)


  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    edited July 4
    Pjotrski wrote: »
    So at least looking at from a direct FE point of view Kx seems better than Ax as a bluff. But hey, always open to other points of view :)

    one thing to keep in mind is that Ax has a lot more equity than Kx, and Kx will almost never make the nuts, so even though Kx might have more FE, Ax might have more EV as a 3bet bluff.
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    edited July 4
    Maybe instead of depolarizing against these nitty opens, it would be better to stay polarized but just on a tighter frequency, like maybe AQ+/JJ+ and A2s-A5s or something like that.

    Also the particular opponent in the original post is more specifically nitty in his opens, not necessarily nitty all around. His high vpip:pfr ratio suggests he really likes the call button so i imagine although we have some fold equity, he'll likely call with a wider portion of his raising range than he necessarily should
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    Isn't that the critical point? If this player is raise-calling a lot you depolarize, and if they raise-fold a lot you polarize?
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    edited July 4
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Isn't that the critical point? If this player is raise-calling a lot you depolarize, and if they raise-fold a lot you polarize?

    Yeah thats what makes sense to me fundamentally, but this thread got me thinking, theres a certain point where 3betting those A2-A5 hands become profitable. Now im wondering out loud where that point is
    maybe with a player like this i block more of his folding range than his calling range with those Ax suited hands and just end up pinning myself up against an even stronger range with those hands

    (Im also very tired at this particular moment so im hoping this response males sense)
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    I've found the discussion extremely interesting, so please report back if you continue digging into the details.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Ori13_TTVOri13_TTV PennsylvaniaRed Chipper Posts: 77 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    I've found the discussion extremely interesting, so please report back if you continue digging into the details.

    Unfortunately ibe been spending most of my poker homework time exploring my strategy toward attacking limpers and plan on spending next week exploring adjustments to that limper-attacking strategy.

    This is definitely a topic i hope to revisit though when i have more time for it
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    Cool.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭
    Another thing I hadn't thought about but realize I do after looking in my history(which is very small, 90 hands) is a live play I'm accustomed to.

    If nit is a short stack (they usually are) I will 3b most pps against them to induce action from other, deeper stacked players. This can lead to a whole table attacking the nits range, and although you're in a 3b/4b split pot, the implied odds from winning all the players in the hands stacks and the different ways you can win make it a great situation to be in. It helps your image too.

    I play on Ignition so I'm not sure how sites are where you can track opps since it's likely they're tracking you too. I'd imagine a good chunk of the battle is figuring out what opps. think of your stats and what theyre doing to respond to your frequencies(if at all).

Leave a Comment

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