3BET RANGES: Hand Reading & Beating Them
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2024
- Learn all about 3 bet ranges in this video and how #poker players construct these ranges in today's games. James "SplitSuit" Sweeney explains what polarized 3betting ranges are, the difference between merged ranges, and how to put these concepts together with some math to find +EV 4bets.
As poker continues to mature, understanding what a typical 3bet range is and what hands it includes is crucial for making better preflop decisions. So pay attention!
00:00 3bet Ranges Overview
00:29 A Common 3bet Hand
00:57 Types Of 3bet Ranges
01:20 Polarized 3betting Range
01:51 Merged 3bet Range
03:12 GTO Solver 3bet Range
04:21 Should We 4bet?
12:03 Hand History Results
12:34 Studying More 3bets
GRAB YOUR PREFLOP POKER WORKBOOK
www.splitsuit.com/poker-prefl...
RELATED LINKS
· VLOG Episode #2 (Full Version): • Building Some BIG POTS...
· Grab My Poker Spreadsheets: www.splitsuit.com/free-poker-...
· Flopzilla Pro Software: www.splitsuit.com/shop/flopzi...
· Complete Poker Ranges Guide: www.splitsuit.com/poker-range...
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL
· Twitter: / splitsuit
· Facebook: / splitsuit
· Instagram: / splitsuit - Ігри
love these live play vids thanks a bunch!!!
Easily the best poker channel anywhere, possibly in the world
I would advise low stakes players never assume a villains 3bet range is more than JJ+\AK until you see evidence it is wider. Especially when they are doing it vs an UTG open.
Even JJ 🙃
Yeah i would assume most 1/2 players are just flatting JJ, they hate jacks
split always tells me good morning, but dude, we watch your vids any time of day
If it's not currently morning then a new morning is right around the bend...I like to be proactive 😊
Excellent job explaining all this. What are your views/reasoning on shoving all in here versus a "normal " 4bet sizing?
Thanks David! The stack depth doesn't really allow for much of a "normal 4bet size" here imo
Super helpful
Cheers Ali!
I would personally approach the analysis a bit differently.
I used your spreadsheet to find the 3-bet width of the range where we have 0EV (in this case 6%). Anything higher is +EV, anything less is -EV. From there I went and looked what 6% of the hands were and judged whether or not this makes sense for them to 3-bet with.
I don't have much experience, but to me it seems like a stretch to assume that a player you know nothing about 3-bets as wide as you claim, 6.53% (which would be profitable for us).
Low unsuited aces? Suited double-gappers? I have my doubts about these hands.
Even if you take away half of these, you would be below the 6% cut-off.
Personally, the widest range I can imagine is at around 7%, but on average I would imagine it's below that 6%.
To me it seems like you tried to convince yourself you didn't make a mistake. You just kept opening up the opponents range to make it seem like it's a +EV play, while you have no real reason to do so. A lot of what-ifs, but not a lot of reasoning why they would 3-bet wide, apart from assuming everyone plays super aggressively. Now, if that's your experience, that's fine. As I said, I don't have experience playing in that type of environment.
Your Openraise was just 3BB. In the games here it is almost 6-8BB. So, the raises are also higher and villains do not fold so often after shoving! Any suggestions?
Either modify the OR size, or do some extra study with the 4bet math given much less FE =)
Your hair is very polarized.
nhwpgg
It's not though, it's an inverted linear range.
LMAO
The analysis is incomplete. Even assuming that shoving with AQo has plus equity against his 3Bet range (and in case of tight range it doesn't,) it must be compared to other logical actions. Assuming our hand is too good to fold, (which it isn't versus a super tight range,) we still have to compare EV of shove to EV of call and the EV of a smaller raise. I'd expect the shove will lead to our opponent folding hands we dominate and continuing with hands that dominate us, so there might be a better alternative.
Fair, but I can't imagine calling is +EV so I didn't bother exploring it
@@ThePokerBank Calling works when Ace or Queen flops & he under-estimates your hand. It also works when he has a bluff and continues bluffing on missed flops with a hand like 76s, but it does leave you in a lot of tough positions, guessing what to do versus his CBet.
@@ThePokerBank If the button's 3bet range is as loose as you speculate, AQo should have great equity. We're dominating a lot of hands. I would guess that it's better to call and keep those hands in the villain's range. The third player complicates this though, but I don't think we mind if they call too.
If we want to have bluffs too, we could shove with our smaller suited aces in this spot, because they do approximately as well as AQo vs our opponent's calling range but have worse playability post-flop.
The intro title picture and music 😂😂
Glad you liked it - I'm trying something different lol
Just to touch on the 3bet range of villain, I can see her 3betting much wider, especially on the button due to the dead money in the middle from the player who also called your raise. She can take all the hands that aren't quite good enough to call and turn them in to a 3Bet Bluff. I know it's a tight configuration and your open has so few bluffs from up front, but the dead caller in the middle incentivizes a 3Bet here as it's literally printing money when you and the caller fold.
I don't even think you need to be looking at a solver to figure this one out, she 3bet in a spot where she can print and you recognised that and 4bet jammed on her. She then must realise that there are literally no 4Bet jams in this game that aren't thick value - It's rare to see 4bet jams in these games that arent AK+ - QQ+ so she's folding hands that don't beat those hands as she recognises that the population is underbluffing their 4bets
Well said!
3b an UTG open is never "printing"
@@johnnyBuz072 raise UTG plus a flat in the middle. Against a sole UTG raise I would agree, but not in this scenario
@@StreetSoulLover i would say the BTN is even more likely to get shoved on due to the presence of the flat caller in between. UTG is less likely to flat given he'd have the worst relative position in a 3-way pot, and since effective stacks are only 100 BB's then most of UTG's range is going to be raise/ship rather than raise/fold to 3b.
Good morning sir!
Really diggin these videos, the mix of technical analysis and live poker footage. Very cool, and very happy for all the great info as always!
Cheers Eugene!
What is the site to buy book?
Good morning William. The link is: www.splitsuit.com/poker-preflop-math-workbook
It seems like we do a lot of math to figure out the implications of a complete guess as to what their range is. When you construct the polarized range of their , you include hands like 74s. I'm skeptical that anyone besides a non-maniac squeezes that light in $1/$2. But that's the thing... how can we really know? and how much does it matter? My guess for BTN's squeezing range here (beyond the pure value JJ+ AQ) has more suited face cards like AJs+ KJs+ QJs+ and a few A5-A4s hands and maybe a couple stray suited connectors, say 98s and 87s. I think this will also 4bet with AQs like you did, but I wonder why you 4bet jammed, instead of just making it $70. This way, if they 5bet jam, you can fold since they pretty much have QQ+, AK and you are saving a lot by not stacking off If they call, you are in pretty good shape unless the flop hits their lite range heavily. We can shove if we hit or its likely they didn't.
In this exact spot it doesn't really matter if they fill up the "non-nuttish" part of their 3bet range with A2s, 75s, or AJo if they would simply fold those hands to a 4bet. What matters is their 3bet frequency and how often they will continue vs. a shove (and ofc, with which hands).
As for the 4bet to $70 idea, I would suggest doing some math on "calling a 5bet shove" given the parameters in this hand to see if AQ is a good 4bet/fold candidate.
@@ThePokerBank So that makes sense that the particulars of what btn 3bet light with here probably don't really matter, just the frequency. This is clearly an exploitive play: you think BTN is light more than they should be here, and/or with hands that don't hold up well when you apply pressure. I'm curious what assumptions drive you to that conclusion. It's clear you just sat and probably would've mentioned any player specific reads you had. Supporting the exploit is just "it's $1/$2 live". But as 1/2 tables go, this one seems mellow... a 3X raise got action from 2 players, not 6 (lol). Perhaps you've played here before and are really leveraging some population tendency impressions you have. I think if you are going to argue for an exploitive play like this, you should say what guided you to it.
Also, it seems you are widening your 4bet range linearly. I'm curious what your calling range looks like (to call the 3bet squeeze). My intuition is to polarize by adding light 4bets, not borrowing from the top of our call range. That'd make sense vs villians who don't fold enough and are wider than they should be.
Minding exceptions, your average 1/2 live player is not squeezing vs UTG and UTG1 with 10%... they would respect the utgs strengths generally..
And your oponent was a woman? It gets even worse the shove in my opinion, specially when you said you didn't know her: women are way more risk averse statistically... I think you probably made her fold JJ or QQ or someting like that
Great Video anyway!
Cheers!
do you guys know good discord servers, where you can post some hands for discussing?
For sure Limu: redchippoker.com/discord
@@ThePokerBank thanks
Utg plus one opens to 6…. I would hate to play poker outside of Texas
'Range' appears to be the current buzz word to use and every poker pundit assumes they actually exist and are generally pretty fixed things when that may indeed be totally incorrect for many many players....
Ranges are just a theoretically optimal way to think about the game. It assumes that players don't play any random hand and it uses the math of how often you win a hand and what actions would be profitable.
It incentivizes you to think about what your opponent would be doing in a structural way instead of just looking at your own hand and guessing what they would be doing.
It's been a 'buzz' for the better part of a decade right now.
@@TheBelgianEmperor And that's where the entire house of cards collapses. Not all players think in terms of ranges, or they change their range at a whim and so they should. Playing mechanically mathematically is not necessarily the most productive. These days solvers have been more of a hindrance than a help to many players
depolorized = Linear??
Yes, the terms are used interchangeably
thats a $20 open in the 1/2's I play...and you'll still get 4 callers.
I know those games all too well =P
Your not gonna like or want to hear this but. . . since I know all the poker BS about what you should do and what you shouldn't. I follow 0 of it, the people I play with can never figure out why I came into the hand with 35o and on the river have 2 pair on a k39J5 board.
Play how you like, if everyone follows your rules, everyone will be easy to read.
I am not a pro, I don't win six figures a year, I make about 100-1200 a day thats Average to my max. I lose no more than 150. a day cause i buy in 1x and if I lose i go home til next day.
But it's fun watching the hands, and bluffing is not something I do cause it's too much like lying and thats never an option in my world.
Dear James. Please help me. Give me a chance
With?
@@ThePokerBank i am unemployed. Not asking for money. I would love to work for you
@@ThePokerBank i just need a chance please
I really appreciate the fact that you offer all your videos. But I really think that your Language is way too advanced for people who look up for basic/fundamental Pokertheorie on youtube.
If theorycrafting for top tier player is your goal here, then more power to you. But for someone who has maybe played seriously (reading theory, analyzing hands after) 1k hands, its almost impossible to follow what you are saying.
No flame, just in case you aren't aware
I appreciate that. Do you have any suggestions for this? I want to avoid making videos 45 minutes long because I'm defining each word/concepts tbh.
@@ThePokerBank I totally get that. It's not necessary the words themselves.... more like that you tend to "finish" trivial/obvious parts of your sentence or statements in ultra lightspeed. It's like when you learn a new language and listen to native speaking person with accent? I hope you know what I mean.
I'm only one week into poker studying so don't overvalue my advice :P
@@gymlin123 I appreciate you taking the time to share - and I hope my videos become more digestible as you continue studying!
Is there anyone dumb enough to pay 4 poker coaching ?
why is $27 considered a 3-bet ? #hlep
a 3-bet is the first re-raise preflop.
@@ThePokerBank ohmygsh, this makes way more sense than a 3x bet.. i think a lot of players are raising 3x..
*mind blown* ... this changes everything. :)P XD
@@gavinbrinck Glad I could help!