Hello TPE, I am sitting here at 4am in Madrid on holiday, and because I am such a degen, rather than say, Googling nice excursions for the family for tomorrow, or checking out reviews on fantastic kid-friendly restaurants in the area, or investigating the air quality in Central Madrid (I couldn’t care less), I am in fact…watching a YouTube video on how get the best out of Flopzilla.

A situation comes up: a scenario is given, where a player, in my vocabulary, 4-bets. Yet the video creator explains this as a 3-bet. In fact, I prefer the creator’s definition of a 3-bet, it is more intuitive. I could also swear, in one of Andrew Brokos’ podcasts, that he corrects a certain Mr. Carlos Welch, when Carlos calls a move a 4-bet, that is is in fact a 3-bet. Using “standard” poker terminology, I could swear that, along with Carlos, this was a 4-bet. 

My point being, there seems to exist, in my mind, if nowhere else on Earth (though it seems to me to exist also elsewhere, see above),an argument over the definition of a “3-bet”.

My traditional understanding of the term 3-bet assumes that the Big Blind’s non-voluntary placing of the big blind is considered bet#1. An initial raiser’s (voluntary) bet is (incorrectly imo) considered bet#2. A re-raiser’s bet is considered bet #3. Hence 3-bet.

So I am guessing that if there is indeed no argument except in my own head about what constitutes a 3-bet, that this will be a short thread. If there is some argument, then I hope we can resolve it. And even if this initial question turns out to be a dunce, then I hope anyone else confused around poker terminology can visit this thread to have their own questions about other terms answered.