Tiempo de Estancia

Let's talk about two types of hands that perform poorly when we get 3-bet: Dry pairs and speculative Axxx hands.

Pairs with bad side cards (e.g. ) and speculative Axxx hands (e.g. ) don't perform well in 3-bet pots. There are several reasons for this:

- These hands have a hard time finding more good flops to stack off on as the preflop pot grows in size

PLO From Scratch Page 81 - They play poorly aainst AAxx, since AA has them dominated

- They also perform poorly in general against other premium 3-betting hands

Remember, the bigger we build the pot preflop, the more important it becomes to find good flops we can profitably continue on. Hands that perform well in big pot scenarios are therefore hands that hit lot of flops fairly well, not hands that hit a few flops hard.

Therefore, when we build big pots, we prefer suited and coordinated hands that often hit a piece of the flop. The hands that perform poorly in big pots are the hands that rely more on implied odds when played for showdown equity.

or are examples of such hands.

If we don't have much steal equity (and we usually don't, after we get 3-bet), we need good showdown equity to compensate. And in big pots we want hands that quickly make something good enough to continue with. Conversely, we don't want to play 3-bet pots based on showdown equity with either-or hands like dry pairs (usually flops a set or nothing) and speculative aces (mostly flop weak one pair hands and occasionally a flush draw if the ace is suited), since these hands mostly miss the flop.

To illustrate these principles (in case some of you still are tempted to call 3-bets to set-mine with hands like

) we'll do a model study with flop equity distributions. We assume we raise a dry pair or speculative Axxx and get 3-bet, and then we call to play fit-or-fold on the flop.

Here is our model:

 You raise pot to 3.5 BB with with or in CO

 Button 3-bets pot to 12 BB with AAxx, and the blinds fold

 Can we call profitably for implied odds if we know that button has AAxx and that he will bet-call every flop?

Assume we call the 3-bet (8.50 BB more). The pot is now 25.50 BB on the flop. Both started with a 100 BB stack, and there is 88 BB left to play. We know that button has AAxx, and we also know that he is totally committed postflop. He will c-bet all flops if we check, and then he always call an all-in checkraise.

Our postflop plan is therefore to never bluff, but to checkraise button all-in whenever we flop sufficient equity. We risk 88 BB to win 25.50 BB + Villain's 88 BB = 113.5BB. Effective pot odds are 113.5:88 = 1.29:2, so we need 1/(1.29 + 1) = 0.44

= 44% equity on the flop to profitably checkraise all-in.

So we checkraise all-in on top_x% where our average equity is av_equity. Then we are all-in in a 201.5 BB pot wher we have invested 8.5 BB + 88 BB = 96.5 BB from the moment we decided to call the 3-bet

The EV for calling the 3-bet in this model is:

EV (call 3-bet)

= (1 - top_x)(-8.5 BB) + top_x[av_equity(201.5 BB) - 96.5 BB]

Below are the flop equity distributions and EV calculations for calling a 3-bet with and

against AAxx. Note that we use the notation AA** ! AAA* for Villain's hand in the ProPokerTools calculations (this eliminates AAAx hands that Villain would probably not 3-bet):

PLO From Scratch Page 82 KK72 (rainbow) vs AAxx

EV (call 3-bet)

= (1 - 0.15)(-8.5 BB) + 0.15[0.803(201.5 BB) - 96.5 BB]

= +2.58 BB

PLO From Scratch Page 83 AT92 (suited ace) vs AAxx

EV (call 3-bet)

= (1 - 0.24)(-8.5 BB) + 0.24[0.672(201.5 BB) - 96.5 BB]

= +2.86 BB

Results from the model study

We observe that both (+2.58 BB) and (+2.86 BB) can call a 3-bet with

marginal profit under the conditions described in the model. Does this mean these hands are suitable for calling and playing fit-or-fold on the flop when they get 3-bet?

In reality, no. Some reasons for this are:

- The model presumes perfect information about Villain's range (he only 3-bets AAxx) - The model presumes maximum implied odds

- The call is only marginally profitable, even under ideal conditions

For example, a competent Villain will sometimes bet-fold his AAxx correctly when you have flopped really well and he has poor equity. If he bets pot on the flop (25.5 BB) and folds to your all-in checkraise, he will escape with more than half of his stack intact. This reduces your implied odds (if Villains bet-folds some flops, he also increases your steal equity, of course, but we're assuming you're using a fit-or-fold strategy here). Other times he will use position, check behind on the flop, and save chips that way.

Another thing this model does not account for is players 3-betting a range of hands. Perfect flop play is only possible with

PLO From Scratch Page 84 perfect information. If we can't put Villain on AAxx with a high degree of certainty, we will unavoidably make big postflop mistakes when we use a fit-or-fold strategy.

For example, we will check-fold a lot of flops where we should have checkraised (for example, with KK72 on an A J 4 flop when Villain 3-bet us with a rundown hand like JT98). We will also sometimes call a 3-bet we should have folded preflop (for example, when we have KK72 and Villain has 3-bet AKKQ and has us totally crushed).

Conclusion from the model study

When you raise pairs with bad side cards ( , , etc), or speculative Axxx hands ( , , etc.), fold these hands to a 3-bet, both on position and out of position.

Continuing to the flop, planning to play fit-or-fold, might be marginally profitable under ideal conditions, but is more likely a big mistake. You will unavoidably set yourself up for a lot of tricky postflop decisions with these problem hands, and when you're forced to think your way out of a tricky spot, you will often make a mistake.

Now that we have gotten these two common fold-scenarios out of the way, let's discuss the decision to call or fold to a 3-bet in more general terms.