I’ve written articles on 3-betting in the past, mostly focused on range construction with some elements of sizing factored in. But in order to tackle the subject of 3-bet sizing in more detail, we have to dig a little deeper. 3-betting is a concept that can be confusing to novice players, since most people’s first instinct is to avoid making things they perceive to be more aggressive moves until they’ve developed a higher degree of confidence in the ‘correctness’ of their plays.
In order to unpack this concept to the appropriate degree, we first need to understand some of the fundamental issues relating to bet sizing and poker theory. The smaller the bet, the less likely the possibility that the person facing that bet will fold, and vice versa. Similarly, a smaller bet risks less on the part of the person making it, so the level of profit if the bet does produce a fold will be greater, with the trade-off that the generation of a large pot will be much more difficult. With that said, let’s explore some other key concepts.
The relationship between range and sizing
I’ve covered some of these issues in the past, but let’s recap. Almost any range in poker can be described as linear, merged or polarized to some extent, and our 3-betting ranges are no different. From time to time, we’ll be 3-betting a range very heavy on value hands, as we expect to get called very often and will require a good amount of equity in the postflop spots resulting from this situation. We don’t mind 3-betting small in these spots, as postflop play is usually going to be fairly comfortable for us.
In other situations, we’ll be doing a lot of flat-calling preflop instead, and as a result we need to be 3-betting a more polarized range, to avoid taking profitable flatting hands out of our flatting range. When we do this, a bigger sizing benefits us greatly, since we reduce the likelihood of postflop play occurring, and increase the likelihood of 4-betting or folding – in which case, we simply call the 4-bet or 5-bet with our very strong value range, and fold our trashy bluffs. These concepts regarding range and sizing are relevant in almost every situation.
Recognizing the effects of stack sizes and position
With these above concepts in mind, it’s important to bear in mind that the long-acknowledged mantra of ‘always 3-bet larger out of position’ is still true – it’s true because of this concept, not in spite of it. When we’re in the big blind, or indeed in the small blind, we theoretically have wider flatting ranges than in other positions (less so in the small blind, but that’s an ambiguous issue), as a result of the better odds we’re getting. When this is true, our 3-betting range polarizes to an extent, and thus our sizing should get bigger (3x the open-raise or more, compared to 2.25x-3x in position). We are also disincentivized to create postflop play situations, since being out of position makes life exponentially harder in those spots.
When considering the effect of stack sizes, the situation is simpler than it might seem – in the vast majority of cases, deeper stack sizes should necessitate proportionally bigger 3-betting overall. If your usual sizing in positon at 40bb stacks is 2.5 times the open-raise (a perfectly reasonable amount), then at 70bb stacks it should probably be at least 2.75x. Generally, you want the betting structure of the spot to be as simple as possible – two examples might be as follows.
At 30bb stacks, there’s virtually no room for anyone to have a 4-bet/folding range, no matter what the positons and open sizes – at best, the player would likely have to 4-bet for ⅓ of their stack. Thus, we should assume that the 4-bet at 30bb stacks will be all-in, which allows us to size our 3-bets accordingly – 3-betting a 2bb BTN open to 7.5bb from the BB, for example, or 3-betting a 2bb UTG open to 5.25bb from middle position.
Conversely, at deeper stacks, an additional bet can emerge in the betting structure if we size our original 3-bet incorrectly. Let’s say we’re in that BB spot against a BTN open at 100bb deep. If the BTN opens to 3x (much more common at deeper stacks) and we 3-bet to 8.5bb (not an uncommon 3-bet sizing for some players), then the BTN can come back with a 4-bet of around 19bb – 2.25x our 3-bet size, since they’re in position. This puts us in a position of being forced to choose between jamming 100bb over a 19bb bet – hardly ideal, risking a lot for a small gain – or trying to 5-bet to 40bb – 40% of our stack – and make it look like we might be folding to a shove, while also leaving villain with the chance to flat getting good odds in position.
If we had made our 3-bet 11bb instead of 8.5bb, villain would then be forced to 4-bet to around 25b (the same 2.25x multiple), which would make 5-bet/folding impossible for us, and thus make the 100bb shove an acceptable scenario. By adapting our sizings to fit the situation, we control the number of bets in play, and we give ourselves a degree of flexibility that puts us in the driving seat of the hand. Villain’s options are restricted by a simple manipulation of pot sizes and odds on our part.
Making exploitative adjustments
Now, these fundamentals are obviously only guidelines. There are plenty of ways to exploit opponents with your 3-bet sizings. For example, an opponent who never folds to 3-bets might demand a much larger 3-bet sizing with a very value-heavy range – you’ll get a lot of mileage out of 3-betting your KK+ to a sizing or 4x or even 5x your opponent’s raise in some spots at deep stacks.
Conversely, an opponent who folds to 3-bets far too much might be very vulnerable to even small 3-bet bluffs with a high frequency, to the point where you may consider eliminating flatting ranges against these opponents, and simply 3-betting small with all of the hands you would usually flat-call, for the sake of added fold equity.
You can also take this one step further, and exploit players who 4-bet/fold too much by going smaller with your sizing in certain spots, in an effort to encourage them to 4-bet/fold at stack sizes that are inappropriate for it, or you can adapt to players who are particularly weak postflop by 3-betting to sizes designed to force them into situations in which they stand to make a large number of mistakes.
Alongside this, you may even be able to extract added value from your nut hands by 3-betting to very small sizings versus weak players at extremely short stacks – players who have little ability to read your ranges coherently might even be susceptible to very small 3-bets at stack sizes as short as 10-12bb! There are no rules – if an exploit is available to you, take it.
Keep an eye on your HUD
Finally, your HUD is the key to appropriate adaptations in 3-bet sizing. You should always keep in mind the fundamentals as explained above, but if you want to make the exploitative adjustments that will boost your EVbb/100 beyond its current point, you need to be consistently looking out for players who are open to exploitation. The only real way to do that – in online games, at least – is to look out for those stats that are out of the ordinary over reasonable samples.
If you spot a player who is folding to 3-bets more than 60% of the time, or less than 40%, that’s probably a player who can be exploited. If you see someone raising 60% of the time on the button, that might be someone whose range is so wide that it struggles to stand up to even a smaller-than-average 3-bet bluff sizing.
If you have your HUD stats sorted by stack sizes, as I do (I sort by <30bb and >30bb – get in touch for advice on how to do this, if you’re someone who plays against the same player pool regularly), then you’ll be able to pinpoint players who have particularly weaknesses at certain stacks – a common one in this department is folding to 3-bets a reasonable frequency at shorter stacks, but almost never folding when deeper. In these cases, players are usually vastly overestimating their own postflop skill in 3-bet pots, and their ranges will be very easy to play against.
The bottom line is to know the fundamentals, but always be flexible, just like anything else in poker. Don’t stick to a rigid framework just because you’ve heard it’s good – these are guidelines and principles, not rules. You can’t break the rules of the game, but you can definitely bend its principles for your own gain. With practice and dedicated study, your ability to do this will progress.