Blind defense ranges.

Lemon knows the answer to this

72o has 29% equity vs a 55% range, so you could call 100% if there was no postflop action (gets checked to showdown 100%), however you will never be able to materialize your equity correctly (you will fold a lot when ahead and call a lot when behind) therefore you have to flat a lot tighter.

based on your assumptions bb should 3bet top 20%, call middle 40%, 3bet next 20% fold bottom 20%. guy is just overfolding way too much to not 3bet a massive amount.

vs people who arent over raising you cant get away with that though. but people who dont overraise probably raise in the 30% range. thus limping is just better.

So why are we 3betting hands for value OOP that when called are crushed, such as QTs, KJs, and so forth? If he's overfolding shouldn't we 3bet like the top 10% for value and the bottom 30% to get a good chunk of bluffs in?

Do you generally advocate we play a slightly wider range than the BU is opening overall and 3bet top/bottom equal % while calling everything in the middle, or is that just based on this opponent alone?

I know it's much more complicated than that and I haven't even begun to consider 4betcall and 4betfold range of villain, or realized equity etc. etc.

Oh, and thanks for answering

Actually I just ran equity calcs on T9s / QTs type hands and we're really not doing too bad against his calling range o.O

Due to the fact that in the BB we're getting a better price on a 3bet I can see how that's still a profit.

If he doesn't adjust it's a clear 100% defend

3b this: JJ+, 55-22, AJs+, J2s, T4s-T2s, 94s-92s, 84s-82s, 74s-72s, 63s-62s, 53s-52s, 42s+, 32s, AQo+, K4o-K2o, Q5o-Q2o, J6o-J2o, T6o-T2o, 96o-92o, 86o-82o, 72o+, 62o+, 52o+, 42o+, 32o
not sure about mid value ranges. I'm pretty sure I'd want to have super garbage heavy 3bet range
call this: TT-66, AJs-A2s, K2s+, Q2s+, J4s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, AJo-A2o, K4o+, Q7o+, J7o+, T7o+, 98o

On May 26 2014 22:31 Sliggy wrote: On the one hand, I only need 25% equity against a loose range to call, so in theory I could profitably call with a ton of complete junk hands, while simply 3betting all hands that have an edge on his 3bet calling range for value.

This is wrong thinking when you play against someone with a huge leak like folding 70% to 3bets who doesnt adjust
You don't call just because you can

you are comparing the EV of all your actions and choose the most profitable one. i.e. if call is +ev but 3bet has higher ev, you will opt to 3bet.

If you play this villain in e.g. zoom you will have around breakeven call with crap hands, but you make insta profit preflop with them when you 3bet

Ya I realize 100% defense is bad. I'm just looking for guidelines on what methodology people are using to come to rough conclusions on what % of their range they want to be doing certain things with. Thanks for the replies!

let's take 72o yeah

3BET
Say this is his calling range
TT-66, AJs-A5s, K9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, AQo-ATo, KJo+
you have 28% equity

say you realize some 40% of it postflop - not unreasonable IP with initiative even with a crap hand like that

mucho profit

now when you call
Equity Win Tie
MP2 29.84% 28.75% 1.09% { 72o }
MP3 70.16% 69.07% 1.09% { 33+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J3s+, T5s+, 95s+, 85s+, 75s+, 65s, A2o+, K4o+, Q6o+, J7o+, T7o+, 97o+, 87o }
you need to realize 83% equity, just to break even
+ Show Spoiler +

As far as I'm aware this is the only method to do this somewhat accurately using math preflop.
The % equity you realize is hard to arrive at exactly academically -basically you look at probability of how often you flop what what your postflop plan is etc. Easiest would be using a large database and just seeing what it is in practice.

On May 27 2014 03:44 Sliggy wrote: Ya I realize 100% defense is bad. I'm just looking for guidelines on what methodology people are using to come to rough conclusions on what % of their range they want to be doing certain things with. Thanks for the replies!

no in this case it's clearly good if he wont adjust you should defend literally 100% if you find this guy e.g. in zoom or he's a masstabler robot

On May 26 2014 22:31 Sliggy wrote: For le bored poker expert / cool helpful guy. I'm purchasing a license for CREV soon and want to use it to work on my blind game a ton. I'm a little bit of a boob when it comes to figuring out ideal blind defense ranges (even away from the table) so I was hoping to get some criticism / insight from you guys on how you'd do it. For the sake of this hypothetical let's imagine both players ONLY check postflop. Assumptions: - SB opens 55%. - SB opens to 2x. - SB folds to 3bet 70% - SB calls 3bet 22% - SB 4bets 8% - Hero's 3B size is 6BB when he 3bets. Immediate considerations: - SB needs to succeed 60% of the time for his steal to break even. - Hero's 3bet needs to succeed 63% of the time to show a tiny profit. - Hero is getting 3:1 on a call and only needs 25% equity to break even.

2 outta 3 of your immediate considerations are wrong:

1. SB open success of 50% is the immediate break even point

1.5 / (1.5+1.5) = 0.5

2. Hero's 3b success of 62.5% is the immediate break even point

5 / (3+5) = 0.625

--

Re: 3. correctly pointing out that you only need 25% equity to continue answers most of your questions automatically- if you only need 25% equity to call preflop and you get to realize 100% of that equity (since you added the condition that you are checking down postflop) then you have a clear 100% defense range (72o, 32o, etc have ~30% equity vs a 55% opening range.

--

I think a much better exercise would be to start by making an unexploitable "default" range vs different opening sizes. Once you have that it's much easier to make exploitative adjustments based on your opponents tendencies.

Gus likes to defend those 25% equity hands OOP, see how that works for him

Practically everyone will adjust to your strategy to some degree, which can turn a formerly profitable situation into an unprofitable one(or even more profitable if your opponent adjusts incorrectly).

On May 27 2014 11:58 Smuft wrote: Show nested quote + On May 26 2014 22:31 Sliggy wrote: For le bored poker expert / cool helpful guy. I'm purchasing a license for CREV soon and want to use it to work on my blind game a ton. I'm a little bit of a boob when it comes to figuring out ideal blind defense ranges (even away from the table) so I was hoping to get some criticism / insight from you guys on how you'd do it. For the sake of this hypothetical let's imagine both players ONLY check postflop. Assumptions: - SB opens 55%. - SB opens to 2x. - SB folds to 3bet 70% - SB calls 3bet 22% - SB 4bets 8% - Hero's 3B size is 6BB when he 3bets. Immediate considerations: - SB needs to succeed 60% of the time for his steal to break even. - Hero's 3bet needs to succeed 63% of the time to show a tiny profit. - Hero is getting 3:1 on a call and only needs 25% equity to break even. 2 outta 3 of your immediate considerations are wrong: 1. SB open success of 50% is the immediate break even point 1.5 / (1.5+1.5) = 0.5 2. Hero's 3b success of 62.5% is the immediate break even point 5 / (3+5) = 0.625 -- Re: 3. correctly pointing out that you only need 25% equity to continue answers most of your questions automatically- if you only need 25% equity to call preflop and you get to realize 100% of that equity (since you added the condition that you are checking down postflop) then you have a clear 100% defense range (72o, 32o, etc have ~30% equity vs a 55% opening range. -- I think a much better exercise would be to start by making an unexploitable "default" range vs different opening sizes. Once you have that it's much easier to make exploitative adjustments based on your opponents tendencies.

Ya that's what I'm trying to do. I'm finding it hard to put all the pieces together and figure out what the best ranges to 3b/cc/3b bluff are, even if I have an unrealistic degree of info.

Thanks for the reply!

For example, do we always want to 3bet an equal amount of value and bluff hands? Do we only 3bet linear v fish? Which factors (stat wise only, ranges become very specifically catered once you have notes and history) will make you adjust certain parts of your range?

On May 27 2014 12:34 goose58 wrote: Gus likes to defend those 25% equity hands OOP, see how that works for him Practically everyone will adjust to your strategy to some degree, which can turn a formerly profitable situation into an unprofitable one(or even more profitable if your opponent adjusts incorrectly).

I'm not OOP.

On May 27 2014 18:06 Sliggy wrote: For example, do we always want to 3bet an equal amount of value and bluff hands? Do we only 3bet linear v fish? Which factors (stat wise only, ranges become very specifically catered once you have notes and history) will make you adjust certain parts of your range?

Once you have a strong understanding of the fundamentals, the exploitative adjustments become very obvious. It seems you have a long way to go and instead of asking a few questions here you'll be better off just reading Matthew Janda's book "applications of no limit". He'll answer all of your questions and give you a very solid foundation in poker theory.

Thanks

I've been recommended Will Tipton's books also which I'll be checking out