2. Your opponent tendancies matters. Range picture.
In the2. Your opponent tendancies matters,There is a picture showing the calling range of our opponent when he opens 100% of his buttons and faces a 3bet to 150.You say this picture proves that it is preferable to 3bet with any 2 than folding. How does this range picture leads you to this conclusion ? Thanks
Looks to be an error - good catch (120 to win 90, not 90 to win 90). The point remains that it's very close to +EV already even if we have no equity postflop, which is of course silly, we are in a very favorable position with the initiative.
Posted before reading above...*IGNORE*Page 15:I'm not sure why it's true that 3-betting any two cards vs a 100% mr is profitable in that situation. His continuing range in the book is 49.92% of hands. You're 3-betting from 60-150 and the preflop breakeven point for a 2.5x 3b is 57.14% fold equity (120/(90+120)). I'm guessing you're considering postflop equities too when making this analysis but the book suggests otherwise. Since we'll still see a decent amount of flops, even if we just check-fold every miss, we should still win more than 7.22% of the time. Is that what you meant?*IGNORE*
Hello, I didn't quite understand this part. We should vary our 3-bet sizings according to the details of the situation however the emphasis seems to be on balance. So how are we still taking advantage of the properties of the hand? This is what I mean: In the first paragraph: Hands like AK and ATs play poorly against middling hands so these play better with smaller 3-bets.In the second: We can make bigger 3-bets with big aces. Any help please? Thank you
I think in the first paragraph (specific hand matters), line 10:folding to 3-bet jams is instead folding to 4-bet jams
In the2. Your opponent tendancies matters,There is a picture showing the calling range of our opponent when he opens 100% of his buttons and faces a 3bet to 150.You say this picture proves that it is preferable to 3bet with any 2 than folding. How does this range picture leads you to this conclusion ? Thanks
Looks to be an error - good catch (120 to win 90, not 90 to win 90). The point remains that it's very close to +EV already even if we have no equity postflop, which is of course silly, we are in a very favorable position with the initiative.
lol, exactly what I thought when I was looking at it here: http://www.husng.com/content/sizing-your-3-bets-based-hand-opponent-and-...the e-book looks awesome :D
Posted before reading above...*IGNORE*Page 15:I'm not sure why it's true that 3-betting any two cards vs a 100% mr is profitable in that situation. His continuing range in the book is 49.92% of hands. You're 3-betting from 60-150 and the preflop breakeven point for a 2.5x 3b is 57.14% fold equity (120/(90+120)). I'm guessing you're considering postflop equities too when making this analysis but the book suggests otherwise. Since we'll still see a decent amount of flops, even if we just check-fold every miss, we should still win more than 7.22% of the time. Is that what you meant?*IGNORE*
Coaching page + Blog
Hello, I didn't quite understand this part. We should vary our 3-bet sizings according to the details of the situation however the emphasis seems to be on balance. So how are we still taking advantage of the properties of the hand? This is what I mean: In the first paragraph: Hands like AK and ATs play poorly against middling hands so these play better with smaller 3-bets.In the second: We can make bigger 3-bets with big aces. Any help please? Thank you