BvB in BB small stakes

Assuming you are equally good or better than opponents

What sort of % of equity you realize do you expect in the BB?

Vs 3bb raise
We need 2/(2+1+3)=33.33% equity

assuming we realize 100% equity VS 32% open raise + Show Spoiler +

we'd call this
+ Show Spoiler +

VS 44% + Show Spoiler +

we can call all these:
+ Show Spoiler +

And around 44%+ is a very common frequency, most regs are used to raising even more as people fold too much.

As it seems lose I've played with R in play ability editor in Power Equilab, got this:

- 100% for broadways
- 7% discount for junk offsuit hands
- 13% discount for offsuit hands
- 9% discount for offsuit higher 1+2 gappers

Using this if we play vs 44% sb steal

1) Vs 3bb:
+ Show Spoiler +

2) VS 2.5bb:
+ Show Spoiler +

Is that somewhat realistic/what you use in your games?
How would you change the R table for specific hands in the charts?

In terms of actual strategy we can call all those, and make up 3bet combos simply based on number of value combinations + top of folding hands + hands that benefit from 3betting more than flat like 63s 43s etc. as you guys mentioned here
https://www.liquidpoker.net/h/1056574

As people's sizings and opening ranges vary so much BvB getting somewhat accurate playability editor should be the easiest way to actually devise a strategy, as it'll be hard to have one rigid fixed one out there with people's SB strategies being all over the place.



EDIT: had a question about the software
It's Power Equilab.
You arrive at the ranges by
1) Put villains range
2) Use hand range calculator - set minimum equity, set play ability editor for R (that table I posted) and it gives you the range.
I'm pretty sure this is what most of you are doing in their head at the tables anyways when deciding what hands to call, it just puts it in numbers

hand range calculator is in normal equilab too (green arrow), the R and playability editor only in power equilab

I don't think the answer to your queston is as simple as defining things via "postflop skill edge" or "realizing equity." Feels more like a limit holdem solution and perhaps your initial results indicate that as it is telling you to defend alot of hands.

That's what my gut tells me but I don't have much to contribute beyond that I am confident in quite yet.

Also, a way I think about it myself if I am thinking about postflop just generally is that button raised with both sb and bb behind. So when I am closing the action on bb sb still had a chance to 3bet or call despite the fact that he folded and if it were push fold you need to make weakest hand in buttons range(gto range) indifferent considering as mentioned the fact that sb could have defended instead of me.

edit : not rio member so I didn't know what that lefort R% was but looking at your charts looks pretty good to me.

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.

Though we've never seen any GTO preflop solutions where the hand isn't a decision between all in and fold preflop it's almost certain that a lot of hands get mixed as both flats and 3bets. We see a lot of mixed strategies in postflop play also, and I see no reason why it wouldn't do the same preflop. We can only guess what hands get mixed and at what percentages though. Some general exploitative rules of thumb are to 3bet more polarised and more aggressive the less they call preflop, 3bet more linear the more they just flat 3bets and 3bet more polarised with an emphasis on blocker hands and hands that do well when 5bet against people who tend towards aggressive 4betting/folding.