Quick Thoughts on 3-Betting Pre-Flop

There are some hands that I almost always 3-bet (AA, KK) and some that I almost never 3-bet (72, 95), but in the middle are a whole bunch of hands and spots that are at least kind of close. What if you are 100BB deep, a tight-aggressive player opens UTG, and you hold AKo UTG+1? What if the effective stacks are 200BB, UTG+1 opens, CO calls, and you hold KJs on the button? What if you are in the SB with KQo and a tight-aggressive player opens on the CO?

What's really important in these closer spots is how good your opponents are. Remember that most players are going to make bigger post-flop mistakes when stacks are deep relative to the pot size than when they are shallow. This is especially true when you have position, though you may also find that against better players you 3-bet hands like KQo from out of position in order to make the stacks shallower for your own benefit whereas you are more comfortable making post-flop decisions out of position against less-talented opposition.

Two Overbets

In light of my recent article on Creative Bet Sizing, here are two river check-raise overbets I made against the same player. The situations are similar: I have an unlikely monster hand and my opponent has a well-defined strong-but-not-too-strong hand. By "well-defined", I mean that he probably realizes that I know roughly what he has and specifically that he is very unlikely to have a huge hand. That puts him in a rough spot when I overbet, because he doesn't know what I will do with the information I have, ie whether I am trying to get value or force him out.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $20.00 BB (2 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (SB) ($6099)
Button ($4299)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q, 5
Button raises to $54, Hero calls $34

Flop: ($108) 5, 10, A (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks

Turn: ($108) J (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks

River: ($108) 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $55, Hero raises to $345, 1 fold

Total pot: $218 | Rake: $0.50

Hero: LOL


You may wonder why I say I think he has some kind of hand here. It's because he's passed on two good bluffing opportunities on the flop and turn. That tells me has something, and based on how he'd been playing, I expected him to try for thin value with a lot of his range on the river.

Note that I laugh at him when he folds. He may or may not interpret it this way, but my intent was to mock him for trying to get thin value and allowing me to check-raise him huge. This is important to set up his subsequent call:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $20.00 BB (2 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (SB) ($6158)
Button ($4238.50)

Preflop: Hero is SB with K, 2
Button raises to $54, Hero calls $34

Flop: ($108) 2, 9, A (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $65, Hero raises to $199, Button calls $134

Turn: ($506) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $325, Hero calls $325

River: ($1156) 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $640, Hero raises to $5580 (All-In), Button calls $3020.50 (All-In)

Total pot: $8477 | Rake: $0.50


This one isn't that much of an overbet I guess, but I would have played it the same if the stacks were twice as deep. He called with AQ but unfortunately quit immediately after getting stacked.

Creative Bet Sizing

My latest poker strategy article, Creative Bet Sizing, is now appearing in the December edition of 2+2 Internet Magazine. The article examines underbetting and overbetting as examples of how to add unconventional plays into your arsenal. Here's an excerpt from the section on overbetting the pot:

Big bets are simply harder to play against than smaller bets. Any edge that you have over an opponent, whether it is position, better cards, or superior skill, is magnified by pot and bet size. This doesn't mean that every bet you make should be all in. But if you believe that an opponent will make comparable mistakes whether you bet 70% of pot or 125% of pot, the latter option will be far more profitable.

A good rule of thumb about overbetting is that the larger your bet, the more likely it is to induce a raise-or-fold response from your opponent and the less likely it is to be simply called. How exactly you use that information will depend on factors like your hand, your opponent, and the size of the effective stacks.

Triple Barrel Bet Sizing

A triple barrel bluff will by definition involve at least three bets. Especially when dealing with a player who can read hands well, sizing these bets will often be the difference between success and failure.

As I discussed in a previous post, your objective on early streets may actually be to get called. Since you are going to be bluffing later anyway, it behooves you to build a bigger pot to steal. Your other objective on early streets is to lay the groundwork that will enable you to represent a monster by the river. That means your betsizing must be consistent with the hand(s) you want to represent.

On the river, your objective is to make the most +EV bluff that you can. Remember that this is not always the bluff that succeeds most often. Tripling your bet size to double your fold equity is not a winning proposition.

Let's start by looking at how not to do that. I played this hand against a very good player, one of the best at these stakes:

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

CO: $1,022
Hero (BTN): $2,349.75
SB: $2,169
BB: $3,128
UTG: $779.75
MP: $1,309

Pre-Flop: 8 T dealt to Hero (BTN)
3 folds, Hero raises to $35, SB folds, BB raises to $130, Hero calls $95

Flop: ($265) 4 K 6 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $111, BB calls $111

Turn: ($487) 4 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $333, BB calls $333

River: ($1,153) 2 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $1,275, BB calls $1,275

Results: $3,703 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero showed 8 T (a pair of Fours) and LOST (-$1,849 NET)
BB showed K Q (two pair, Kings and Fours) and WON $3,700 (+$1,851 NET)


First off, this isn't the greatest spot for a triple barrel bluff. My opponent is announcing that he has a medium-strength hand, but he's also playing it in a way that will invite bluffs. And this particular opponent definitely has the hand-reading skills and the stomach to call down.

Since there aren't any plausible two pair combinations, the river overbet represents either a full house or air (or 53 for a straight, I suppose). And Villain probably expects me to 4-bet KK pre-flop often, so really I can only have three combinations of 66, one combination of 44, or the rare 22 that was bluffing and then backed into a boat. Since he's played his hand to entice a bluff, he's got an easy call with KQ.

I like this one better, even though it didn't work:

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

BB: $2,203.50
Hero (SB): $6,798

Pre-Flop: 7 9 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB calls $20

Flop: ($60) 4 2 8 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $44, BB raises to $144, Hero raises to $366, BB calls $222

Turn: ($792) Q (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $444, BB calls $444

River: ($1,680) J (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $888, BB calls $888

Results: $3,456 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
BB showed 7 7 (a pair of Sevens) and WON $3,455.50 (+$1,727.50 NET)
Hero showed 7 9 (Queen Jack high) and LOST (-$1,728 NET)


First off, my range is intrinsically much wider because we are heads up. It's not inconceivable that I have 84, 82, or 42 for two pair. My smallish bet sizing on future streets is consistent with this; by the river, 82 can expect to be best but can't expect worse hands to call a big bet. I also felt this bet sizing would be consistent with air that turned or rivered a pair and is now making a thinnish value bet.

Unfortunately, this was another poorly chosen opponent. He wasn't so much a good hand-reader as he was just plain old-fashioned stubborn. Oh well.

FTOPS Event 4/Rebuy Tournament Theory

Event 4 was a $300 NLHE tournament that allowed one $300 rebuy and one $3000 add-on. The initial $300 bought 2000 chips, the rebuy bought 2000 chips anytime during the first hour that you had 2000 chips or fewer, and the add-on bought $2500 chips at the end of first hour.

There are two seminal books that address the value of tournament chips: David Sklansky's Tournament Poker for Advanced Players and Mason Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics. I haven't read Malmuth's book, but my understanding is that both make a similar argument that this value is non-linear. Another words, your last chip is worth more than your second to last chip is worth more than your third to last chip etc. Each chip you add to your stack increases the value of your stack, but by less than the preceeding chip did. So if you have on chip worth x, and you double up, your stack is worth marginally less than 2x. And if you double again, your stack will not be worth 4x. This is because survival has value in a tournament where all of the prize pool is not paid to the winner.

The countervailing principle is that chips are worth more in the hands of a skilled player than an unskilled player. This is because better players will have the opportunity to use those chips to win more chips. They contain within them the player's expected value for the tournament. In FTOPS Event 4, the first 2000 chips, which cost $300, were probably worth $750 or so to the best player in the field. Conversely, they were probably worth about $50 to the worst player.

You can see that at this rate, it is clearly correct for the best players to rebuy immediately in a tournament that allows unlimited rebuys. Even though his second $300 buys him less than his first expenditure, it still buys him more than $300 worth of value. Conversely, it is incorrect for the worst players to rebuy. In fact, it is incorrect for them to play at all.

When only a single rebuy is permitted, this could at least theoretically change. If a skilled player uses his rebuy immediately to double his starting stack, he risks losing all 4000 of his chips at once. Although his rebuy was a good investment, he missed out on the opportunity to make an even better investment in a second tournament life. Remember, going from 0 to 2000 is worth more than going from 2000 to 4000. By opting for the latter, the player cost himself the chance to do the former a second time.

However, this must be balanced against the risk of immediately getting over 2000 chips, remaining there for the entire rebuy period, and thus losing the opportunity, to invest that second $300 at all.

The one other thing I haven't mentioned yet is that it matters how many chips the other players at your table have and how good they are. A player cannot realize the extra value that his skill imparts to his 4000 chip stack if no one else at the table has more than 2000. If several bad players to his right all rebought immediately, then the good player should do so as well, so that he will have the opportunity to invest his additional 2000 chips well against those weak players. If several very good players to his immediate left rebought to 4000, the same player might be better off saving his rebuy as an insurance policy against elimination. Otherwise, he risks playing larger pots out of position against very good players- a scenario where those additional chips would not be invested well. If the first hour is drawing to a close and his stack is below 2000, he can always take his second rebuy then.

Unlike an unlimited rebuy tournament, where it generally makes sense to push any edge during the rebuy period since survival is never at risk, this structure makes survival during the first hour particularly important. This is because the player will have the opportunity at the end of the first hour to buy chips at a discount. $300 will buy him, not 2000 chips, as with the rebuys, but 2500 chips for an add-on. It is pretty much always profitable for a good player to add-on, and if he is eliminated in the first hour, he won't have a chance to take this good investment.

I include this exegesis on rebuy tournament theory because I have nothing interesting to say about the tournament itself. No one at my table rebought immediately, so I didn't either. I lost my first 2000 chips with two pair in a limped pot at the 10/20 level. My opponent seemed like a fish, so I thought he would call me down with worse, but he ended up having a better two pair. Then I rebought, added on, lasted for about an hour more despite missing tons of flops, shoved over a very weak limper with K7s, and got called by one of the blinds who had AK.

I'm not all that good at PLO, but I do want to learn, and I'm sure it will be a weak field, so I'll probably play today's 2:00 $500 PLO 6-Max. I'll be playing the Stars $300 anyway. Then at 4:30 there's a $100 rebuy FTOPS that I'll play if I'm not sick of poker by then.