[Total: 19 Average: 7.3/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
Concepts In This Video: 3-Betting • 3-Betting Light • Hand Reading • HUD • Post-flop • pre-flop • studying • Theory
lafauriea
Daryl,
very nice stuff. it is the kind of the stuff that I find the most useful in training vids. Makes us thinking on our own side.
you are the man to make a theory serie on stack sizes especially 15-40BB in middle and late stage.
a question: at which point you stop making 3b/fold vs your stack size. deep in tournament with shallow stack do you think that with like 21-24bb stack, you can find profitable spot to just 3b/fold instead of reshove ? if yes what would be the target to do that, vilain stat, vilain stack size…?
LanguidlyClinical
Good stuff.
So, assuming antes are in play, do you have a minimum stack depth at which you will 3bet between 2X and 3X (so some of your range will call and some will fold)? I think that question was asked above 🙂
And you dont mention committment issues so…do you 3bet more than a quarter of effective stacks?
How do shortstacks behind affect your sizing and range (assume, say, that your typical 3bet size would be over a quarter of the stack of the player behind)?
LanguidlyClinical
Also, regarding making your sizing small…this is an exploitative play and therefore exploitable, right? Cos you are offering villain maybe 4-1 and villain should probably never fold.
DaKid
I was also wondering as LanguidlyClinical said about commitment issues. Are you adjusting your 3bet sizing so that you 3bet to a size that if your opponent 4bets and you 5bet shove your opponent is committed, therefore preventing him from 4betting. What stack sizes would you do this at? and what sizing would you make it?
Jon_Allan
The point about the open raise size’s effects on your 3b size are indeed interesting. As the open raise size increases the odds any given 3b size would offer get longer but the relationship is slightly concave. See http://i61.tinypic.com/2liiil2.png
– The point is that to offer the same odds you do not need to multiply their open by as much, however thinking in terms of 2.4x, 2.5x, etc wont really help with this (the concavity) rather we should think in terms relative to the pot, to get back to a linear relationship.
(Of course we must take the stack size into consideration first in any case)
A similar phenomenon occurs as the ante increases relative to the big blind – the odds the same 3b size would offer for any given open size now get shorter and the relationship is very slightly convex. See http://i60.tinypic.com/15y6out.png
– Again thinking in terms of the size relative to the pot takes us back to a linear relationship.
This is also why M is fundamentally a better measure than big blinds.
On a side note I love that near the beginning when discussing what would be bad sizes 700 would be too small – indeed it would, as a click back would be 720 🙂
omgxeveryxtime
Much beter then the last video thank you i would have given you beter mark if the video was longer
LanguidlyClinical
jonallen, your pics are interesting.
But maybe someone has opinions on what sizing is required to prevent the opener from calling with a wide range. I guess this is a function of pot odds, implied odds/stacksize and relative postflop skill.
For eg, a min 3bet will offer about 4.5-1 with antes and a small PP hits a set 7.5-1 so, with any stack depth, this seems like an easy call for the PP(shoving may be an option too but that renders a large 3bet ineffective more than a small one).
Similarly, any decent hand can prob be called, although it will feel very uncomfortable playing postflop OOP with a capped range (so maybe its sensible to call small 3bets with AA to protect a wide calling range or, more importantly, cos its more profitable as its (deceptively) the only premium in a range full of mediocre hands).
aaaaaaaaa
I do it even down to 14bb sometimes. I do it in spots where staying in the tourney is valuable and/or I think it 3b small looks stronger than a rejam. I typically just look at RFI, vpip,pfr gap ( I don’t want ppl calling a lot), rather have them be shallower cuz ppl peel more the deeper they are.
aaaaaaaaa
Sorry for the late replies I haven’t been able to log in for some reason. Not sure what your 1st question means. Can u rephrase it? 2nd question was answered above I think ( yes). The shorter the stacks the more i’d 3b hands that play well vs their jam for example 22 or something.
aaaaaaaaa
I’m not sure its really hard for him to play well OOP without the initiative. U might be right tho.
aaaaaaaaa
I do this sometimes at 35bb~ I make it around 6bb where a jam isn’t great for him and its hard to 4b/fold 1/3 of his stack.
aaaaaaaaa
Are u saying we don’t need to 3b as big/small as I was suggesting vs diff raise sizes cuz of the concavity? Sorry this is a bit above my head. I think I get it tho.
Jon_Allan
You are right that we do not need to 3 bet as big in terms of multiples of his open when his open is bigger. The underlying reason is that to offer the same pot odds we bet some % of the pot, not some multiple of his open, simple as that really.
Was just showing how us changing from thinking in terms of the pot to thinking in terms of his open takes us from a nice linear relationship to a non-linear one, which is obviously harder to deal with in our heads!
Jon_Allan
Cool. The pics are not aiming to show what odds we should offer in any circumstance, just that the relationship between our bet as a multiple of their open and the odds we offer is not a linear one. If we know what odds we want to offer we can work it out by looking at the pot instead.
Yep, what odds we should offer is a function of all those things – plus position and things like what we think they think our range is for making it any given size.
Not sure we should actively be trying to prevent a wide call really (if they call too wide, that is a mistake, and hence profit for us; just as it is a mistake to call too narrow) – if someone repeatedly makes loose calls we change our range (both bluffing less and widening our value range) as a counter exploitation; we could also increase our raise size (offer longer odds) with this new range, not to prevent the calls but to get more value from those calls (although we must bear in mind that this is instantly observable unlike the changes to our ranges).
Of course we need to know at what point a raise size becomes committing, and at what point it means there will only be one bet post flop, and at what point two, and so on.
LanguidlyClinical
No worries. I think you answered the 1st question: down to 14bbs…which is, for sure, lower than me. I remember you saying in another video that you hate the 3bet-reshove cos you are out the tourney maybe 20-30percent the time whenever you do it. I havent done the numbers but i bet that 3betting small at 14bbs requires your range to be pretty value heavy if you want to remain balanced(and not exploitable to a 4bet-shove).
But maybe the general population is not comfortable with 4bet-shoving light.
LanguidlyClinical
I am still not convinced by these small 3bets. My concern is that the opener can profitably call with any 2 cards and if that is the case then we are 3betting too small (and they are not making a mistake by calling wide)
I suspect that there is a 3bet size for a particular situation (taking into consideration effective stack size, blinds and antes, size of open, position and size of remaining stacks) that renders the the opener indifferent between folding and continuing with a large part of his range. This size is, i am guessing, close to optimal.
Its not an easy thing to work out(whether or not the opener can call a small/min 3bet with any 2) but i bet some players have tried. The model of postflop play would be similar to that of defending blinds with somewhat shallower stacks. I might give it a try sometime but i suspect i have other leaks which are easier to fix.
And anyway, does it matter what is optimal when no-one can exploit this style of 3betting small and cbetting the flop often IP.
FWIW i just did a sim and it seems t9s(a hand which hits something as much as any hand) flops a gutshot or a pair or better 67percent of the time so a half pot cbet from the 3bettor would be breakeven with regard to immediate fold equity but will show significant profit if the hand has any pot equity. And shoving any flop with a pair of 9s or 10s will have some serious RIO. And the 3bettor doesnt need to cbet as much as half pot
spinedoc
Curious to know people’s thoughts regarding what bb stack would mean that you are committed to calling a 4-bet, when making a 3-bet. Same question for when a 4-bet is committed to calling a 5-bet. Thanks!
folding_aces_pre_yo
Hey jace on the 2ed hand , if we’ve got a strong hand against that opponent that calls 3-bets often enough and their fold to c-bet is high , i was wondering wont it be better if we making our 3-bet sizing a bit bigger to get more value? only problem is we may get exploited if we make our 3-bets as a bluff a bit smaller so i guess it’s gunna have to be around the same sizing so we can balance our 3-bet range with our value/bluffs hands, correct?
nice series btw!
folding_aces_pre_yo
another question, regarding the Q3o hand , if we were 20bb effective , and we decided to 3-bet like 700-750 and v bet shoves, hero will be getting good odds to call the 4-bet shove imo …v is @ a stacksize were he’s likely not going to be open folding which makes me just wanna fold this pre…if we were a bit deeper then 3-betting will be fine here.
Thoughts on this?