Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

Calling Range Facing a 3-bet

JredAJredA Posts: 100Subscriber
edited April 2019 in NLHE Strategy Discussion
$2/$5 Local Casino

I am UTG+2 w/ the effective stack of $650 and 9 T

I open to $15.

BTN calls $15.

A weak and passive straightforward player. He is most likely capped here as he seems to always raise if he has a strong value hand instead of call.

SB makes it $55.

SB has been very splashy pre-flop but has done so in a passive way (calling a ton and very wide). He has not shown much aggression pre-flop or post-flop. This is his first 3-bet.

My main question in this hand is what factors do you use to determine how wide our calling range is in spots like this?

Villain tendencies, stack sizes, position and players in the pot are the obvious ones.

I put villain on a tight 3-bet range comprised of mainly value hands (Top 5% or so). So I am value 4-betting KK, AA and most if not all AK combos. Since I label him as passive I doubt I have much/if any of a 4-bet bluff range.

I have $650 behind and need to call $40 to see a flop (assuming the BTN is almost always calling or folding).

I have position on the 3-better, but not on the BTN.

My standard opening range here is around 14-15% of hands.

So hands like 89s, 9Ts, KJs, JTs, QTs, etc always give me pause if I should call.

I am folding the bottom portion of my range due to not being extremely deep. I probably set mine with my entire range. But hands like 78s and even 98s I fold.

I tend to think about the odds to call of the raise and shoot for 10-15x when set mining.

20x + w/ speculative hands.

But when I use these basic guidelines I always feel like I am folding too much to aggression when faced with a 3-bet. Especially the smaller suited broadway cards as I mentioned above.

But where do suited broadway cards and better suited connectors fall into this spectrum? Do you call and take a flop or fold?

And why?

Comments

  • fishcakefishcake Posts: 1,002Subscriber
    Villain’s sizing is bad. You have position and some playability with stacks behind. I wouldn’t fold any hand I opened from this position preflop against this sizing with the exeption of probably 76s, 65s. They’re just the bottom of an opening range. I think you should take a flop with everything else. Being in the middle isn’t great and we don’t really want the btn to come along but whatever. Position on pfr and a good price means I’m not folding.
  • CycleVCycleV Posts: 1,196Subscriber
    The problem here imo is stack depth. At a table where 3!'s happen at an average amount, and most stacks are under 150 BB, I probably wouldn't open speculative hands from EP. There just isn't enough room to play.

    Versus the V type you described, I'd rather call T9s than any weak BW. AK, AQs, AJs are all calls to such a small 3!, but after that it's getting into RIO spots vs a tight 3! range. Even KQ is dicey. QJs to T9s, and 87s I can find a call with.

    FWIW I play in a game with a $1200 cap, usually aggressive players, so I'm used to defending a bit wider. I just don't like calling with the shallow depth in your example.
  • JredAJredA Posts: 100Subscriber
    CycleV wrote: »
    The problem here imo is stack depth. At a table where 3!'s happen at an average amount, and most stacks are under 150 BB, I probably wouldn't open speculative hands from EP. There just isn't enough room to play.

    Versus the V type you described, I'd rather call T9s than any weak BW. AK, AQs, AJs are all calls to such a small 3!, but after that it's getting into RIO spots vs a tight 3! range. Even KQ is dicey. QJs to T9s, and 87s I can find a call with.

    FWIW I play in a game with a $1200 cap, usually aggressive players, so I'm used to defending a bit wider. I just don't like calling with the shallow depth in your example.

    These are helpful points and what always crosses my mind when first buying in or playing against other stacks <150bb deep. It's good to hear it from others.

    Options become very limited and your forced to stack off so often with low SPR's. Which makes calling 3-bets with hands such as small suited connectors and weak BW very problematic.

    Thanks for the feedback.
  • XbobloveXboblove Posts: 120Member
    This looks like 99-JJ with some players going further up and down the pairs a notch or two. If I knew villain were doing this with JJ+ only (nit bias) you could peel using flopped Ace as a bluff/scare card. Calling isn't great but implied odds make it worth a shot EXCEPT holding your exact hand you risk some reverse implied odds some percentage of the time. I'd bias toward a fold.
  • XbobloveXboblove Posts: 120Member
    This looks like 99-JJ with some players going further up and down the pairs a notch or two. If I knew villain were doing this with JJ+ only (nit bias) you could peel using flopped Ace as a bluff/scare card. Calling isn't great but implied odds make it worth a shot EXCEPT holding your exact hand you risk some reverse implied odds some percentage of the time. I'd bias toward a fold.
  • ChaseSpellChaseSpell Posts: 183Subscriber
    edited April 2019
    The larger the 3b!, the worse price we are getting to call, so we defend tighter as the 3b! gets larger. For example, if I open a pot to 20 and my opponent 3b! to 40, im probably not folding anything. There are many factors to consider, and some good ones have already been listed above. The most important are: the effective stacks, the size of the 3b!, the opponent's range, position, and the overall skill level of the opponent. If we decide we need to be folding some hands in response to a given 3b!, start with the hands with the lowest realized equity like the worst offsuit hands in your opening range. Suited-direct-connectors, pairs, and good suited broadways tend to have high realized equity and are often good candidates to defend against a 3b! The smallest pairs are sometimes folded due to reverse-implied-odds considerations.

    If you think this V isnt going to fold to a 4bet then you clearly shouldnt have any 4b!"bluffs". 4b! ranges are highly opponent-dependent and stack-size-dependent. Ki's new fasttrack preflop series is really good, so check it out if you haven't yet.
  • StreetFighterStreetFighter Posts: 184Subscriber
    This guy is 3! < 4%, we are 100bbs deep, don't have last action, and no relevant reads/sample to construct a range. I dont get any advice other than to fold.
    Thanked by 2Sonny RogerHardy
  • fishcakefishcake Posts: 1,002Subscriber
    This is not a fold. Ask any other winner.
  • hustlinhustlin Posts: 366Subscriber
    fishcake wrote: »
    This is not a fold. Ask any other winner.
    Really eh?
    Would love to know more on the math side of this.


    I’m folding this . I think J10s might be a call for me... I may even fold that w this stack depth.
    We are in the middle position which sucks. We don’t have enough odds here to try to hit w out suited connectors.
    Usually looking for 20-30 to 1 for odds to hit against a very strong perceived range.
  • kaboojiekaboojie Posts: 518Subscriber
    If this is the first 3! you've seen from V in a long time, I could see a case for an expoitative fold. In general, however, I think folding this hand to this small sizing, against an oop V is too weak. I'd like it better heads up, but this hand is still very playable and will flop enough semi bluff spots that we can make life very uncomfortable for V.

    As mentioned, I think we can pitch the weaker suited cons like 76s, 65s. I'd prob pitch 98s as well because it's the type of hand where we end with a draw to the shitty end of a straight a lot. I also think it's important to pitch hands where we are easily dominated. This includes ATs, KTs, QTs and prob KJs as well. I would also def toss AJo. AQo is on the cusp and would be V dependent.

    Folding hands like T9s to a 3! in this configuration is def a safe play and will not you into trouble. However, I think if you are looking for max win rates at these levels, you have to play hands like this when getting this price. If V made a proper 3! from the sb of say 80, I might fold due to our stack size. Otherwise, we should see a flop.
    Thanked by 1hustlin
  • kaboojiekaboojie Posts: 518Subscriber
    One more thing: When evaluating a Villain's tendencies, I'd be careful using statements like this:
    JredA wrote: »
    I put villain on a tight 3-bet range comprised of mainly value hands (Top 5% or so).

    In a live setting, you would need hundreds of hours against a V to be able to assign an accurate % like this. Not just from sample size, but our own psychological biases would most likely skew a true number here. I think the better approach is to pay attention at showdown and use the cards you see as a bench mark for his tendencies. (seeing AA in an ep vs ep 3 bet spot is no biggie. Seeing a 3! in this same spot with KQo says lots) Also, if you can make reference to the showdown hands you noted in specific configurations, other posters could offer advice for evaluating the Villain in the hand.



    Thanked by 1neutron212
  • JredAJredA Posts: 100Subscriber
    kaboojie wrote: »
    One more thing: When evaluating a Villain's tendencies, I'd be careful using statements like this:
    JredA wrote: »
    I put villain on a tight 3-bet range comprised of mainly value hands (Top 5% or so).

    In a live setting, you would need hundreds of hours against a V to be able to assign an accurate % like this. Not just from sample size, but our own psychological biases would most likely skew a true number here. I think the better approach is to pay attention at showdown and use the cards you see as a bench mark for his tendencies. (seeing AA in an ep vs ep 3 bet spot is no biggie. Seeing a 3! in this same spot with KQo says lots) Also, if you can make reference to the showdown hands you noted in specific configurations, other posters could offer advice for evaluating the Villain in the hand.

    Thanks for the tips.

    I tend to think in %'s when at the table especially when developing my own ranges. But I will def. keep this in mind when posting.
Sign In or Register to comment.