why do both of your SB ranges not have 33 and 22?
ive no idea what R is, but i did some work recently and my tentative BvB defense ranges are 58% vs 3x, 69% vs 2.5x, and 78% vs 2x opens. I also dont know how to post hand charts
what does your 3bet range look like BvB? its an area im still conflicted about, 3betting BvB and in the BB in general. If we 3bet polarized with a value range + some hands that are a bit too weak to call with, that means like the bottom 30-40% of hands. If we use offsuit trash like K4o/Q6o, then we get to the flop and often have to give up, or check back with a weak made hand, so putting more money in pre with these types of hands seems pretty bad. Then we could use hands like T3s/94s which are slightly more playable but basically only because they can make flushes, but then if villain is defending a decently wide range theres still a decent chance when we get it in, we get dominated by better flushes, so I dont feel good about 3betting those either. Hands like 63s/74s have straight potential but there are only few combos of these type of hands that are actually the bottom of our defending range, if we are really polarizing it should be all the worst hands, and BvB that seems like mostly trash. Which leads me to believe that we shouldnt be 3betting strictly polarized there. It seems like we only play those bottom hands because sometimes they flop a decent hand like 2pair or whatever and we can win a decent pot or otherwise steal small pots in position vs a wide range, but a lot of the time we are just giving up. If we have a lot of trash in our 3betting range, we will either have a lot of no or low equity bluffs postflop, or giveups, neither of which sound like optimal play.
Im not sure if 3betting a hand automatically makes it more +ev or not because of fold equity, such as if K2o maybe has an EV of -100bb/100 if flatted vs a 3x SB open of x range, does 3betting it increase its EV because of the fold equity? If villain isnt folding too often, I dont think it could, we only make money pre if villain overfolds whatever % he needs to defend based on our 3bet size. So that means that we are theoretically neutral EV when we get to the flop afaik, and then K2o becomes massively -EV against a tighter range, so maybe it drops down to -500bb/100 or something. Then that leads me to the conclusion that if we are polarizing, we should only be 3betting hands that retain or increase equity vs a stronger range (is it possible to increase equity vs a stronger range??). And in BvB polarizing, I dont think any of the trash hands, even the suited ones, can really retain equity. I could be wrong, but it seems logical. They can make "nut" hands like flushes, but those nut hands arent even nut hands anymore when they can get overflushed by so many combinations.
So then if my theorizing above is correct, we shouldnt be strictly polarizing 3bets in BvB, so either a semi-polarized range or a completely merged range would be optimal. A completely merged range has the obvious drawback of making our calling range incredibly weak though, so maybe thats not the best option, especially if we are 3betting really wide, like 15%. Even if we dont completely merge though, typical BvB calling ranges always suffer from a lack of strong broadways which can make TPTK and call down triple barrels. How are we supposed to defend against triples on dry boards if we literally only have a couple combos of sets or 2pair that want to see a showdown? Maybe we should use a mixed strategy of 3betting and flatting strong broadways, but I doubt it, because I think we should always play a hand in the most +EV manner, and unless the EV of flatting or raising is exactly the same, which probably almost never happens, one is better than the other.
Another potential problem with 3betting wide is, how to defend against 4bets with a very wide 3bet range? If SB is 4betting a tight range such as TT+ or JJ+ and AK, plus bluffs, and we have a value range such as 99+/AJo+/KQo+/ATs+/KJs+, most of those hands are doing pretty shit against that range. Are we supposed to flat all these hands and pot control with dominated holdings, widen our shoving range, or just fold pre and let villain exploit us by over 4bet bluffing? I dont know what the optimal strategy pair is in that situation, where 3bet ranges widen a ton but 4bet ranges dont afaik. No one, at least at my stakes, is 4bet felting stuff like AQo and 99, it pretty much stops at TT and AK among regs.
The last 2 paragraphs might make me think that we should actually not be 3betting such a wide range BvB, but then again its commonly accepted that we should 3bet more the wider our opponents range is. However, should we be 3betting a similar % based on villains opening ranges or should it trend relatively tighter as we get looser, such as 3betting 6% vs an MP open of 20%, (3betting 30% of the original RFI), but then 3bet only 10% BB vs a SB open of 50% (3betting only 20% of the original RFI)? If we use a method involving calculating villains mandatory defense range based on our 3bet sizing, and taking the hands that have 50%++ equity against that range, labelling it our value range, and then adding some constant % of bluffs, the 3bets should not trend tighter as villains position gets closer to the blinds, but maybe we should not have a constant % of bluffs, and bluff relatively fewer hands as we move towards the blinds. Maybe we should tighten our relative value range as villain gets into later positions instead, and maintain the same % of bluffs. Or maybe we should keep everything the same and have really wide 3betting ranges and defend them in some method I havent thought of. Maybe the default 4betting ranges should actually include AQo and 99 as an optimal strategy pair BvB.
Id love to hear everyones thoughts on these issues, and im sorry if it strayed too far from the original topic. Let me know if its cool or I can just make a seperate thread. |