I have had this same question in my mind. In theory it would be easier way to play sb because you have only two options instead of three. Looking forward to see comments from coaches.

Not sure but think they call it a merged range or something like that. I am curious to hear what people who have experience with it say. As said above, it seems to have some advantages. I would think that your ranges would be different depending on who opened.

Curious to know what happens at a fixed table, as opposed to fast fold, when people start to realize that you are 3betting your entire range from the SB. Do they start to adjust? If so, how? Do they start 4betting lighter? If so, then how do we adjust to that? Tighten range up, stack off lighter?

For your info guys, Adam Jones does some great articles/videos here on Poker VIP about this very topic that I personally found very useful.
I would recommend checking them out.

Good points!

@eroticjesus Any thoughts on this?

I actually spoke to someone about this a little bit. Sounds like the range is a fairly tight one, around 11% and it sounds like it is pretty much the same no matter who opens, but I was 100% clear on that part. Because it is on the tighter side, if you want to defend against 4 bets without getting overly exploited it is fairly easy. You can be defending the top 5-6% of hands which is fairly strong, and if you break that into calls and 5 bets I think you will be alright. If you don't have to worry to much about exploitation then you can tighten that up even more

I tried it a bit and don't think you have to worry much about them catching onto you 3 betting too much because the range is fairly tight so you just don't get dealt the hands frequently enough in the SB to be 3 betting like every orbit where they would catch on. I think at my stakes and on anonymous I am going to modify it slightly as there are some hands in it that I wouldn't feel comfortable 3 betting an earlier position (UTG, MP) open with and I won't get exploited by calling them.

Haven't really figured out post flop, but don't think you want to be auto c betting the flop. Probably need to balance out the checks with some fairly good hands as you will be check folding a fair amount when you miss with some of the weaker holdings

Hey,

it depends on sizing and position (I know, I start 90% of my posts with that phrase^^). Against BTN I have a 3bet only strategy against all sizings because if called, the BB has a very very nice spot to squeeze and push our equity out of the pot, because BTN openraises ~45%-70%, wide range, will fold often, we call often hands like KTs, KJo etc, not good against squeeze. Furthermore the BB has the opportunity to call a lot of hands because of the good odds, we have condensed range in the SB now and bad position for that range.

There is a rule of thumb to 3bet 0,33*RFI, but I think thats to much work and thinking, I have a default in that spot ~17% 3bet, if someone folds nitty, I rise it up to ~20% but not more, because the BB can easy exploit that strategy. Against 4bet it depends on sizing, I shove Top-Range AK KK+ and bluff A2s as randomizer, because the bluffs will be expensive if villain makes it small, call all pockets, ATs+, suited broadways and T9s, no one can exploit it by 4betting recklessly (but I have to call a lot if I want shove a narrow range), all hands have super equity and get good pot odds to call, well hard to play oop but thats poker. If I face a bigger 4bet I start adding more top hands in my shove range because more deadmoney and I dont want to call a lot with bad odds but I still have to defend obv.

In some scenarios I call hands which have a bit more EV(call) than EV(3bet) if the SB is passive tight or fishy, hands like KJo, 55-66, other low pockets, T8s stuff like that.

Against early positions and small raises I call a bit more, the BB knows in 2016 that he cant squeeze a lot against two tight ranges. Thats hands which are not good to 3bet (because of villains position an range) and to good to fold because of very good direct pot odds and high equity against range. Example: UTG raises 2bb, I see no sense to 3bet 88 and 99 but I want to play them because I fold a lot of equity if I fold, 77-66 are also calls, AQo mabye better to call than 3bet, suited broadways too. But if villain raises 3bb from UTG I hate calling because bad pot odds, thats why I going to 3bet only now.


I've heard of this strategy a few times now, particularly vs. steals. Do you you think it is optimal?

A few pros from what I've read:
1) Takes initiative away from villain
2) Keeps our range uncapped
3) Makes it easier to play OOP
4) Prevents squeeze from BB
5) Has preflop fold equity vs. wide steal range

Should we be calling with some hands to make our range polarized as opposed to linear? K9/QT/JT/88 etc.?

Also, should our SB 3betting range vs. MP be much different?

Cheers

The arguments from pros are right. I think you can break it down: Your range EV is higher if you play 3bet-only in the SB against BTN (sounds simpler right? + we start to see big picture and not only fragments of the game, okay it is very advanced to think that way but I think it is the right way), against small raises from the other positions you can 3bet a linear top range and call all hands which are call>3bet against range.

Why you want to make your range polar in the SB? Makes no sense, the openraiser facing good pot odds to call, you want to have hands which make good equity postflop when you are oop.

Yes, your 3betting range vs. MP should be much different because MP is way tighter than CO and BU.

Sorry not my best English today, bit tired

Default SBvBU obv

Thank you sooooo much man! You are a huge help! I'll get working on it! Cheers