When They Don’t 3-Bet Enough

In my previous article, I tackled responses to players who over c-bet out-of-position (OOP).

Among the assumptions made therein, I presupposed the opponents preflop range was intact.

But humans play different.

Today, we’ll turn it around and add a layer of complexity.

We are the OOP preflop aggressor (PFA) playing versus an opponent we think under 3-bets the weaker parts of the GTO 3-bet range while over-doing it with its stronger parts.

I’ll compare this adjusted range to GTO and see what kind of impacts there are postflop.

It’s going to be fun.

Setting Up The Sim

We’ll play from the LJ since this position retains the high density of big card combos à la Early Position (EP) while having a little more reach across boards (22, K5s, 97s making in the range).

Ok. Here is your GTO range.

GTOW – Lojack (LJ) raise-first-in (RFI) range playing 40 big blinds (bb) effective. Red: Raise 2.3bb, Blue: Fold. LJ raises 25.6% and folds 74.4%

GTOW – BTN response to LJ rfi at 40bb effective. Red: 3-bet to 6.9bb, Green: Call, Blue: Fold. BTN 3-bets 6.7%, calls 16.8% and folds 76.4%.

The following assumptions are being made about the BTN strategy;

• Misses the fringe or unintuitive 3-bet bluffs like K7s, the low mixed suited connectors, and QJo.
• Always calls 77-88, TT, A6s-A8s, T9s, T8s, and JTs.
• Full frequency calls 86s and 54s.
• 3-bets all their AK, AQ, and JJ+.
• Mixes their KQo, K9s, and Q9s down the middle.

The idea is to unsophisticate the strategy in a way that better reflects a recreational or softer reg.

Below is the adjusted BTN range.

GTOW – Adjusted BTN call range v LJ RFI playing 40bb effective 

Now let’s take a look at a couple boards and compare the OOPs strategies playing versus a perfect range and our adjusted one.

Vamos!

Spot #1 – Disconnected, Dry A High Boards

We’ll start with the classic, disconnected, dry A high board texture.

Playing versus a robot, what’s our strategy look like?

See below.

GTOW – LJ flop strategy vs BTN, single-raised pot, on A72r using GTO ranges.

Above you can see that your dominant action is to check (highlighted green). When you bet, you most frequently use the smaller sizes.

A common mistake is to think OOP fares better than IP on this texture. Not so.

GTOW – Range vs Range (LJ v BTN, 40bb effective) Comparison on A72r.

BTN performs slightly better in EV and equity realization while LJs range has slightly more equity. All in all, they are competitive.

BTN has all the suited Ax. They have AK, AQ, two pair and sets.

LJ has more of the top end (top set, all the AK and AQ) but also a lot of mid-strength hands that don’t benefit from betting – Hands like KK and QQ.

When these latter hands c-bet and face a call from IPs T8s and 54s, you can see how IP would better perform in equity realization.

Playing in-position with a range that has a lot of good hands? Not too shabby.

In GTO, OOP should check this texture more than it bets. But how does your strategy change versus the adjusted range?

Let’s see.

GTOW – LJ flop strategy vs BTN SRP on A72r using adjusted ranges.

Well. Well. Well.

There are marked differences from the OG strategy.

• OOP bets more than it checks. The script flips.
• OOP wants to size up much more.

Let’s look at the range vs range comparison for the adjusted range to see why this is.

GTOW – Range vs Range (LJ v BTN, 40bb effective) Comparison on A72r using adjusted IP range. 

What happened?

OOPs range saw a leap in EV, took a larger lead in equity and better than matched in EQR.

Earlier, 26% of BTNs range was in the good hand bucket. Now, that’s dropped to 21.9%.

In putting all the AK, AQ and big pairs in their 3-bet range and keeping all their drawy, backdoor type hands in their flatting range, BTN compromises their position on a board they should generally do well on.

Do your opponents carry enough AQ and AK in their preflop flatting range? You might want to shift gears.

Let’s look at another texture.

Spot #2 – Middling, Connected Boards

In GTO land, what’s our strategy supposed to look like?

GTOW – LJ flop strategy vs BTN SRP on T97r using GTO ranges. LJ c-bets a combined 61.5% frequency and checks 38.5%.

LJ leans into betting, mostly using the smaller sizes. This checks out when you consider LJs overpairs and Tx want to charge draws and weaker made hands but don’t want to bloat the pot when run outs can so easily shift the equities.

If we adjust the range?

GTOW – LJ flop strategy vs BTN SRP on T97r using adjusted ranges. LJ c-bets a combined 37.2% frequency and checks 62.8%. 

Wrecked.

Here, BTNs mistaken preflop range ends up working out for them quite nicely. “Even a broken clock is right twice…”

In the first spot, the frequencies flipped in our favor. Now, the opposite.

BTNs additional 1 pairs (A7s, T8s), draws (A8s, A6s) and full frequency strong hands (T9s, 97s, 86s) pushes you into the defensive.

Take a look at how the adjusted range compares to GTO here.

GTOW – Range vs Range (LJ v BTN, 40bb effective) Comparison on T97r using GTO ranges.

On the left, you see that BTN was already doing well in EV and EQR with LJ only leading in equity. Adjust the range (on the right) and LJ falls further behind by most measurements, only retaining the lead in equity which has also slightly contracted.

In GTO, you would bet more often than you check. But make some minor preflop tweaks and the strategy is turned upside down. It’s a whole new game tree.

Extrapolate these findings to the low card, connected boards (especially with a flush draw) and consider how your frequencies would change.

Is poker really solved?

For Further Study

If you’d like to go further down the rabbit hole, here are some questions you can ask and use the GTOW nodelocking function to figure out:

• How does the strategy change if we assume BTN calls too much versus c-bets?
• How does the strategy change if we assume BTN folds too much versus c-bets?
• How does the strategy change if we assume BTN stabs too much facing your check?
• How does the strategy change if we assume BTN doesn’t stab enough facing your check?

Good luck, crushers.