55

omg.

are you even serious?

Hi Drachsarp,

14% 3-bet doesn't mean QQ+,88-22,AKs,ATs-A2s,KTs,QTs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AKo,ATo-A8o . That's not how those stats work.

14% 3-bet means that he 3-bets 14% of the time when he CAN. To be able to 3-bet you need to face a raise. So 14% 3-bet is definitely a lot smaller than 14% PFR (range wise).

As played you are just spewing money. We have no FE when shoving and we risk $4.97 to win 12.01 (minus rake) so we need at least 41% equity, and if we include the rake we need about 44% equity.

Every pair has us crushed. Any 2 overcards are a flip against us. So we are again, gambling with no real equity advantage.

And why exactly are we trying these spew plays at 5nl? Pushing marginal spots preflop is a sure way to get tilted rather easily and of course spew even more.

I tried hard, but I still didn't follow the logic of including 88-22 into his value shove preflop range ♦

Originally posted by BogdanPS
14% 3-bet doesn't mean QQ+,88-22,AKs,ATs-A2s,KTs,QTs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AKo,ATo-A8o . That's not how those stats work.

14% 3-bet means that he 3-bets 14% of the time when he CAN. To be able to 3-bet you need to face a raise. So 14% 3-bet is definitely a lot smaller than 14% PFR (range wise).

Bogdan, isn't it the same thing, since he cannot affect the condition of "facing a raise"?

In contrast, 4-bet is dependent on RFI. So if his RFI is, say, 20%, and 4-bet is 10%, then his 4-bet range is 2%, not 10%.

Three-betting, however, does not depend on any other stats, and it's literally 14% of his hands.

I might be totally knocked out because i was at the dentist earlier this day, but how is it lot smaller ? It is the same.

When some one raised, we have the same any range, and if we decide to 3b 14% of the time we do it with 14% of our range, the condition is true about 2/5 times but that doesn't make our range tighter.

First, 14% in equilab as you posted it's not realistic because people do not 3-bet 14% of the top of their range.

You will have X% of top mixed in with other hands.

What I meant was that 14% 3-bet is not 14% QQ+,88-22,AKs,ATs-A2s,KTs,QTs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AKo,ATo-A8o

It could be JJ+, AQ+ for value and then A2-AT, 45-9T as a bluff.

And yes German, you are correct, 4-bet is affected by what you raise first so it's dependent on that.

And while the 4-bet may show a profit because he folds a lot to it the shove will definitely not although you can see how a blocker can increase our profitability even further - when 4-bet bluffing.

Now back to the 3-bet vs PFR:

3bet is (number of 3 bets)/(number of times 3 bet was possible)
PFR is (number of pre-flop raises)/(number of times the pre-flop raising was possible).

Unless you face open shoves, in 100 hands, you have 100 opportunities to raise pre-flop. That is because you have a chance to raise every time the action gets to you.

In 100 hands, you might have 40 opportunities to 3-bet. You can only 3-bet if someone raised in front of you. If a player 3-bet 10 times, he would have a 3-bet, in this situation, of 25.

So let's say this person 3-bet 10 times and raised a limper or opened 10 times than his PFR is 20% (3-bet IS part of PFR as it's one type of PFR).

The other thing to keep in mind is that 3-bet needs a MUCH larger sample to actually be accurate enough.

14% over let's say 200 hands, or even 1000 hands may not be accurate enough.

And you are looking at a 4-bet of 14% over 37 hands which is including this one.

14% of 37 is a total of 5 hands. Can we call that a sample?

Hi, guys,

Bogdan, am I right thinking that your main argument is basically "do not assume 14% polarized 3-bet ranges"?

Because, even though PFR depends on 3-bet, it doesn't work the other way round. So if we are sure that his range is polarized, say it's 2.5%, then it is literally 2.5% of his best hands. Without any further conversions: most likely QQ+ and AK.

For me, though, 3-bet doesn't tell any ranges. Instead, I just subtract the value range (3%) and get the amount of times he 3-bets light. That's basically it. Is it a good approach?

For example: 3-bet range of 14% means that in 11% cases he might 3-bet light with suited connectors, suited aces, and maybe small pockets. I don't assume him 3-betting KJo, even though it's within 14% range.

Regards,

German

Originally posted by Th334
Hi, guys,

Bogdan, am I right thinking that your main argument is basically "do not assume 14% polarized 3-bet ranges"?

Because, even though PFR depends on 3-bet, it doesn't work the other way round. So if we are sure that his range is polarized, say it's 2.5%, then it is literally 2.5% of his best hands. Without any further conversions: most likely QQ+ and AK.

For me, though, 3-bet doesn't tell any ranges. Instead, I just subtract the value range (3%) and get the amount of times he 3-bets light. That's basically it. Is it a good approach?

For example: 3-bet range of 14% means that in 11% cases he might 3-bet light with suited connectors, suited aces, and maybe small pockets. I don't assume him 3-betting KJo, even though it's within 14% range.

Regards,

German

Hey German,

That's "half" right. There are always different players.

For example the more aggressive 3-bettors have a wider 3-bet value range meaning that they stack off with more than just QQ+, AK. They may go broke TT+, AQ+.

The problem we usually have is that 3-bet takes a much bigger sample to become accurate especially when we look at 3-bet by position, and vs position. And most people make the big mistake at looking at small samples and making wild assumptions (like dracshop may have done in this spot).

Oh I see. I knew that it's possible to 3-bet TT and AQ for value, but I didn't realize that it means going broke preflop.

I still try not to do that, unless I have good FE when shoving.

Cheers.