3-bet defense question (2 Viewers)

boltonguy

Flush
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
1,748
Location
Boston, MA USA
Lately ACR Blitz has gotten kind crazy. Many villians have 3! percentages at 12 - 13% (1k+ hands so I think the stats are fairly accurate).
I've been defending both IP and OOP with some degree of success but this evening was thinking about the math - which I dont quite understand.

Let's say we're up against a 3! range of 13% that looks like this which I think is probably accurate in terms of what theyre playing with these stats:

1674513236567.png


If we look at equities of potential defending hands against these ranges we end up with the following:
- pocket pairs: 99 has 52% equity vs this 13% 3! range. 88 has 48.9% equity against this range plus if we do flop a set we have implied odds that probably make it worth playing down to 66 assuming the effective stack is 100+ BB?
- AJs has 50% equity so maybe we call with AJs+
- AJo has 48% equity so maybe we call with AQo+
- KQS only has 43% so not in range?

So a potential calling range with a per-hand equity advantage vs V's range looks like:

1674513665317.png


But IMHO we're going to be 4! much of this range including AA, AK, KK, QQ (50%) and A4s/A5s so that doesnt leave much of a calling range except AQo, AJs, QQ (50%) and JJ - 77

Thoughts? This seems pretty tight against a wide 3! range.

Should we be 4! more hands to punish the wider 3! range?

Would be interested in people's thoughts.
 
Lately ACR Blitz has gotten kind crazy. Many villians have 3! percentages at 12 - 13% (1k+ hands so I think the stats are fairly accurate).
I've been defending both IP and OOP with some degree of success but this evening was thinking about the math - which I dont quite understand.

Let's say we're up against a 3! range of 13% that looks like this which I think is probably accurate in terms of what theyre playing with these stats:

View attachment 1064913

If we look at equities of potential defending hands against these ranges we end up with the following:
- pocket pairs: 99 has 52% equity vs this 13% 3! range. 88 has 48.9% equity against this range plus if we do flop a set we have implied odds that probably make it worth playing down to 66 assuming the effective stack is 100+ BB?
- AJs has 50% equity so maybe we call with AJs+
- AJo has 48% equity so maybe we call with AQo+
- KQS only has 43% so not in range?

So a potential calling range with a per-hand equity advantage vs V's range looks like:

View attachment 1064923

But IMHO we're going to be 4! much of this range including AA, AK, KK, QQ (50%) and A4s/A5s so that doesnt leave much of a calling range except AQo, AJs, QQ (50%) and JJ - 77

Thoughts? This seems pretty tight against a wide 3! range.

Should we be 4! more hands to punish the wider 3! range?

Would be interested in people's thoughts.
It really depends on stack depth. As stacks get deeper, you will have to defend more especially in position with hands that play well post. Meaning you will need to defend suited connectors and suited broadways. On shorter stacks and OOP, I think 4 betting more often is better because they are just going to fold a lot when you've put them in an essentially all in our fold scenario.

You will have to use the stack depth to punish them in spots where they aren't used to playing deep.

There's more to all this too. I'm sure there are some other good counters.
 
You could call with KQ and worse if pot odds are good. If it's 1/2 blinds and you raise it up to 6, they 3! to 15, you'd only need 28% equity to call right? If their 3! sizing ends up too small you can call much wider than your chart, and if they 3! bigger you can go tighter. Let's say you raised it to 6 and they 3! to 18. That's still pot odds of a little better than 2:1 so you'd only need hands with 33% equity and better to call. You can 4! your best hands, and call with a good chunk of hands vs. your graphic. Of course you can adjust for being OOP and letting the bottom end of that range go. That would allow you to take advantage of people when they are sizing too small which happens a lot, and tighten up when they have a big sizing.
 
*side note just for reference, their 3! sizing would have to be like an all-in 3x the size of the pot for your KQs to be on the cusp.
ex. blinds are 25/50, you raise to $125, they 3! all-in for $600, it folds back to you. To call $600 into a pot of now $800, you'd need 43% equity or better. Roll with that KQs if you are in the right mood haha!
 
ok - I see you're using the odds offered and the equity that your hand has against their 3! range to define your calling range.
That makes a lot of sense at a high level. But after doing an example I think it only works if there is no more betting (all in) so we remove positional disadvantage for OOP player and there are no bets on future streets:

In the 1/2 example: Hero opens to $6, V 3! to $18 IP.
Pot is $2 (BB) + $1 (SB) + $6 (Hero RFI) + $18 (V 3!) = $27
$12 to call.
Odds are 12:27 or 1:2.25 which I think requires 31% equity to call.

If this is V:s 3! range, 54s has 34% equity against this range. I dont know if I can call that 3! with 54s.
We're OOP which maybe we can factor into the calculation somehow (needing maybe an additional 10% equity) and we're likely to face bets on future streets which will dilute our odds.

Thoughts?

1674685490633.png


1674685530601.png
 
I think you are right that you will have a good amount of negative implied odds calling a 3! solely based on equity vs oponents range.
 
I think you are right that you will have a good amount of negative implied odds calling a 3! solely based on equity vs oponents range.
Yep I'm with you both, in OP's example, 54s would have a really hard time realizing that preflop equity. To me that's where you try to factor in the player who is 3! at you and the sizing. To me it makes even more sense to use straight equity for your call in lower levels, as you can identify flop textures and take advantage of your opponent's weaknesses. I like your idea of adding 10% OOP, never thought of that. Good discussion!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom