How do you expect him to react to a flop 3bet with diferent parts of his range? Once you answer that you will realise why 3betting the flop is the absa nizzles
His range:
1. Trips Kings or better.
2. Flush draws (often with overcards to TT).
3. Pure bluffs and other low equity hands (hands with between 2 and 6 outs).
Versus a 3bet:
1. Trips Kings or better is never folding and will either 4bet or flat as a 'trap'. We have succeeded in putting more money into the pot against a better hand. And if he 4bets we don't even get a chance to spike our two outer on the turn!
2. Most flush draws will continue in some way, either by floating or 4bet semi-bluffing. We have no way to prevent opponent realising his equity since we must fold if 4bet, and must check the turn if villain flats. Villain can choose to take a free card if he wants, or he can bet the turn and we will most likely have to fold (given that villain can flat our 3bet with trip Kings or better). We are going to be a substantial dog to win the pot vs a flush draw, since he will either a) 4bet flop, b) flat flop and hit a flush (or his overs) on the turn or river, or c) bluff us on the turn/river. Winning the pot vs a FD requires a parlay - that none of these three things (a, b or c) must happen. And the mathematics of parlays is such that this is fairly unlikely. So we have put additional money in the pot with a hand that is fairly unlikely to get to showdown and win, partly because of it's slight equity disadvantage vs something like AsJs and partly because it is going to get bluffed out of the pot a decent amount.
3. His bluffs will almost always fold and we will win the pot. Every now and then villain will get his spew on, grow a pair, and make a suicidal zero-equity bluff... and we will lose the pot since we can't call! But mostly we will just win right away. As I will explain below, this is not as good a thing as it 'feels'.
Versus a flat:
1. Trip Kings or better is still going to win the pot almost all the time, although we HAVE slightly improved our chances of hitting a two outer. What is the difference? None really, oh... except that
we have put less money into a pot that we are not going to win!. This HAS to be a good thing, surely? Think about this: we can even call turn, fold river, which seems dodgy at first glance - until you realise that this has cost exactly the same as 3betting the flop and then folding to a 4bet. By flatting we force villain to fire two further barrels at us with a well-constructed range (going to be difficult/impossible to do on this flop unless his preflop range is insanely tight, and in this case we'd just fold the flop!) and we get to see at least one more street than we do if we 3bet the flop and get 4bet.
2. FDs are not going to get a chance to 4bet the flop. Villain is going to have to make a tough decision about whether to bet the turn when we check to him, knowing that we have a TON of Kx hands in our range so he might be check-raised when his equity is now very poor. Yes, against our PRECISE hand it is good for villain if he bets the turn since we are never c/r him and so he gets to see the river, and we might fold. But we are playing a RANGE, not a hand. Villain might well bet the turn, but that is fine since our range is very Kx heavy and he is just lucky to run into this part of our range. But villain is going to be under incredible pressure to check back the turn here, which means that we get to showdown pretty often. Yes, villain gets to realise his equity, but SO DO WE... and remember, villain actually has a BETTER HAND than us if he has a flush draw in position, so getting to showdown without having to put a lot of money in is a GOOD THING.
3. With his bluffs/low equity hands, villain will assumedly continue bluffing some % of the time. Obviously we hope his frequencies are as high as possible here. We make money versus his bluffs. We would not have made this money if he folded the flop. Yes, villain will outdraw us somewhere between 5% and 25% of the time, depending on his exact hand. This is a shame. However, it is likely to be adequately compensated for by the profit we make the times when we pick up money from his turn/river bluffs and he fails to ourdraw us. And of course, remember that we were NOT guaranteed to even see the river if we 3bet our hand since villain has the option of 4bet bluffing us. This also counter-balances the fact that villain will outdraw us with his bluffs some of the time.
Ok, so that's the likely ways in which villain will respond with different parts of his range vs a) a 3bet and b) a flat.
It's pretty clear that 3betting is a disaster vs his trips Kings or better hands, and thus flatting is
definitely better than 3betting. If you don't agree with this you are INSANE lol!
It's also pretty clear that 3betting does not gain anything vs villain's flush draws. Yes, he may
perhaps fold some of the tiny flush draws, and we gain there. But he is normally AT LEAST going to flat our 3bet with his FDs (assuming we don't do something stupid like 3bet really big). And when he does this we are in a REALLY REALLY tough spot, and have just succeeded in increasing the size of a pot in which we are not a favourite to win! (see the explanation on parlays above) Flatting is clearly better than 3betting vs most of his FDs,
given how the hand is likely to play out. It's not like we can even raise for value and protection vs AsJs... because that hand is better than ours on this flop.
So it all comes down to his bluffs. You 3bet you 'always' win the pot (except for every now and then when he goes crazy). Feels great, right? Wrong! It shouldn't feel great. You
don't want villain to be folding his bluffs... you want him to continue to barrel with them! You do let villain outdraw you some of the time, but you more than make up for this through picking off his bluffs.
The hand is NOT easier to play if you 3bet. It really is an illusion. As I have pointed out, it is going to be pretty hard to play when villain floats your 3bet! Yes, you do gain information by 3betting... but this is the sort of information you don't want! You have to fold to any further action after 3betting, so what have you gained information-wise? You could have got to the river by flatting and it wouldn't have cost you any more than 3bet/folding. And then you'd be forcing villain to triple barrel you to MAYBE make you fold!
The only part of villain's range against which 3betting perhaps makes the hand 'easier to play' is the bluff component of his range. This is because it ends the hand right away, so we don't have any further decisions to make and it all feels nice and cosy and warm. The problem is that this is precisely the part of his range against which it is more profitable NOT to end the hand right away! Yes, we are going to have to make some guesses and get in spots which 'feel' uncomfortable. But they are not really uncomfortable, this again is just an illusion. As long as we remember we are playing our range vs his range, and our HAND vs his range - suddenly it is not an uncomfortable spot any longer... it is just a hand played in the most profitable manner.
To sum up, it is pretty clear that against trip Kings+ or a FD 3betting is going to work out TERRIBLY... and I assume you are both going to agree with me. I have also demonstrated why it is most profitable not to 3bet versus the bluffs, even though 3betting
is obviously profitable versus bluffs and might make things a little 'easier'.
Additional: Here is a different way of explaining it. Two bets have so far gone in on the flop, and we are considering a third bet going in at some point in the hand. We are considering the two options for how this third bet should go in: either we 3bet the flop, or we flat the flop then c/c the turn. We need to ensure that this bet is made in as profitable a spot as possible. A third bet is going to be made and matched either way if villain has trips or a FD, and both of these are not good for us (trips is a disaster, a FD is still not very good as explained above). But it doesn't really matter since that bet is going to be made (and matched) whatever line we take. So let's focus on the other part of his range - the air. We want a third bet to be MATCHED (not just made) vs his air. If
we make that third bet it is NOT going to be matched since our opponent will fold. However, if we give the opponent an opportunity to make that third bet, and then WE match the bet, we have achieved our aim of getting that third bet into the pot. Basically... by calling the raise we KEEP OUR OPPONENT'S RANGE WIDE, and by 3betting we narrow his range to only hands that either have us crushed or are drawing very well against us (i.e. the FDs which often have a small equity advantage and
always have a LARGE 'playing advantage' down the streets).
Edited to say: Obviously all this is based on the fact that VILLAIN IS VERY LIKELY TO BE BLUFFING ON THIS FLOP. It's pretty clear that this is the case, since it is such a hard flop to have a value hand on and so it is likely that any opponent who raises this flop has far too many bluffs in his range. That's why, without any read/dynamics, most good players would not raise this flop. They would flat with their entire continuing range unless they had a
specific reason to adjust. Obviously, if we have a read that villain is very unlikely to be bluffing and his range is almost exclusively FDs and Kx or better... well all this discussion about 3betting or calling is irrelevant. We should just fold.
Author