3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Assume you are playing heads up and in the big blind against an aggressive button (Someone who raises 80% or more) or assume you are playing 3-handed in the big blind against an aggressive button (Some who raises 40% or more) when the small blind has folded. Also, assume you have a strong hand like AJ or better, 99 or better, etc. Do you three-bet pre-flop and take the lead in the hand or wait until the flop with the intention of check-raising unless the flop is terrible. Terrible being an A-K-T flop when you hold 9-9 for example. If the flop is 9-4-2 and I have AK, I am still check-raising. If you do favor 3-betting, why? If you favor check-raising the flop, why?

Some backround on why I'm asking. I've always 3-bet pre-flop in this spot with my stronger hands and never really questioned it. I sent an email to Matt Matros a while back regarding heads up and he mentioned in it that he didn't believe in 3-betting out of the big blind in a hu match. Recently, I've noticed some of the better heads up high-limit players never 3-betting pre-flop. These players are still in the minority as most high limit hu players 3-bet about 20% of the time but it has got me thinking....

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Seems like you'd be missing out on a good amount of value with your bigger hands both preflop and on the flop by taking this strategy, although maybe that is made up for in the deception you gain on the big streets. Also, your weaker hands now have more value because your opponent must consider those strong hands as part of your calling range, but you may miss out on the value of having the initiative. Tough to tell which factors outweigh the others, but it sounds to me like this may be something that works well when your against a strong aggressive player where having the initiative preflop is not worth as much.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

im interested in this too. it seems you are missing out on too much value with your big hands. however, if you only raise your primos then your range is very readable so you need to throw in some marginal hands too. now the pot is big and you are out of position.

i guess the question is, does the immediate value of your big hands make up for building a large pot out of position more often?

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

I agree completely that you need to throw in some marginal hands like 7-8s, 8-9s, etc. to keep your opponent off-balance.

I also agree that you may lose some value pre-flop when your opponent might 4-bet with a worse hand. In fact, on some sites you can 6-bet playing heads-up so against a tilting or super aggressive opponent, you really could lose out. So, I guess it's not right to never re-raise pre-flop against these types of opponents.

Against non-tilting or ultra-aggressive opponents, I'm still not sure though. I check-raise a lot of flops as it is with made hands and draws alike so it's nice to add some more deception to my flop play to really keep my opponent guessing.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

I agree that I could be missing out on value pre-flop but I'm not sure I'm missing out on the flop. My intention would be to try to make up for it on the flop and at the same time add more deception to my flop play.

I'm still really not sure which is the "better" play. As I said in my previous post though, I do think it's right to play strongly pre-flop against an ultra-aggressive player or a tilting player in an attempt to get as many bets as possible in on all the streets.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Railbirding Dreamclown and Kidpoker (who is think is Daniel Negreanu (sp.?)) playing 500 - 1000 on pokerroom last night, I noticed that Dreamclown NEVER 3 bet his big blind, but check-raised something I would say in the region of 60 per cent of flops. Negreanu, however, 3 bet quite a lot. I only watcheed for about an hour, but it did seem that even though he was stuck quite a bit this guy Dreamclown had a small edge. Obviously there are significant other factors in play here, but one of the reasons that it appeared this way, at least for the spectator, was that it was almost impossible to put him on any sort of a hand. Negreanu, although tricky, you could at least give some sort of hand ranges too as he probably 3 bet about 20 percent, folded his worst 15 percent. His opponent, however, pretty much never folded, never 3 bet, and only really on the turn (assuming the flop went check be raise call) was it possilbe to give him any sort of hand. I don't know if this is true or not, and he may very well have ended up losing he match, but I certainly had the impression that the deception gained by this tactic outweighed the pre-flop equity sacrificed. It certainly would be very, very frustrating to play against.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Yeah, I watched a good part of that match which is one of the reasons I brought it up. I have met DreamClown and played with him a few times in the last few months but never heads up. He and his crew have made somewhere in the vicinity of 1 million dollars playing hu online and DC is their best hold-em hu player. Negreanu was very clear in his blog that he believes never 3-betting is fundamentally wrong. I have great respect for DN's game and tend to think he's right but I'd like to hear a good explanation as to why.

DC's strategy of never 3-betting made for some very interesting post-flop play. There were a lot of levels of thinking going on and in some cases a whole lot of bets going into the pot on the flop from both sides with total air.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

When this guy never 3bet preflop and always check flop, did other guy always bet flop after raising preflop?

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Not always, but a very high percentage of the time. If I had to guess, I'd say Negreanu bet 90+% of the time after raising pre-flop. What are you getting at?

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

If we dont autobet flop it will be harder for guy to make up for what he loses when he only calls with good hands preflop. If we autobetflop he can just move his preflopdecision to flop.

Harrington in his 2nd book says we should raise more out of position then in position preflop because we want the hand to end as soon as possible, that is, we want as much of the pot as possible to come in preflop because postflop he can use his position.

I cant see how this doesnt apply at all here.

Not only does the guy never 3betting preflop give up bets, he also checks flop every time and let guy in position decide how to play hand. So wouldnt it be good if guy in position stopped autobetting flop and checked some of the flops he hated and some he liked? If other guy then starts to autobet turn he can take it from there, and now he got 4 cards on board to use against other guy.

The alternative to not 3bet preflop cant be to 3bet every time we got a strong hand. I guess Negreanu was mixing it up, calling with some of his strong hands.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Yes, I agree that a good solution here is to autobet less. There were numerous occassions during this match where Negreanu raised pre flop, autobet a (say) A J x board, and then folded to the check raise that came on pretty much every single one of these broadway-type flops. I guess the reason he continued to autobet (not always, but a good proportion of the time, even though the flop bet was rarely taking it down) were for metagame reasons, although I can see there is a good argument here for checking in position and betting (with the high likelyhood of being checkraised) for value.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me. I think the challenging part of this defense against the flop check-raise is finding the right balance of checks with flops you like vs. flops you don't like. You have to keep your opponent off-balance enough that he doesn't interpret your check as a liscense to bet the turn and pick up the pot. But at the same time, you don't want to check too many good flops or you will not be getting enough value out of your good hands/flops. I think this delicate balance that needs to be maintained is a good indicator of the strength of the flop check-raise. That doesn't mean it can't be combatted but it takes an opponent with very good post-flop skills (like Negreanu) to do it.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this delicate balance that needs to be maintained is a good indicator of the strength of the flop check-raise. That doesn't mean it can't be combatted but it takes an opponent with very good post-flop skills (like Negreanu) to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, if u are good postflop there got to be ways to counterattack against a guy that always calls preflop and always check flop. Like this guy.

But what happend during the session? U get a feeling DN is angry at the guy. Why?

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Do most of you think these principles and ideas only apply to the high limit online games? I find that lower games up to 20/40 that I have dabbled in, that keeping a pretty straightforward and simple strategy still works best. I have no idea how a 50/100 or 100/200 or 1000/2000 game plays.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

It is important to recognize that calling preflop and checkraising Villain's flop autobet has exactly the same effect as 3-betting preflop and autobetting the flop. In each case the same money goes into the pot and Villain must decide if he wants to raise, call, or fold the flop.

Provided that you assume that Villain will autobet the flop there can be no "loss of value" that everyone keeps talking about. Walk through the two sequences and count the bets if you don't believe this. Chess players call this a transposition.

Hero gains two advantages by delaying his raise until the flop:

1. Information hiding: Villain cannot distinguish big starting hands from little starting hands that flopped well. On a 983 flop, AA and 98 are played the same way.

2. Flexibility: Hero has the option of not checkraising a good starting hand if it doesn't fit the flop. QQ looks like a wonderful hand, but perhaps on a AKx flop calling down will be more appealing versus this Villain. If you 3-bet preflop it's too late for this insight, but if you just called preflop you may change your plan.

Note that Hero can also adopt a more ambitious plan. Instead of checkraising a big flop he might call again and go for the turn checkraise. The point is that having more options is a good thing.

Unless Villain stops autobetting the flop Hero is gaining these advantages for free.

Much of what I just said is a restatement of Kiddo's posts.

My experience is that I am an unlucky player. I rarely have AA, QQ, or even KQ when someone raises my blind. Usually I have to defend with some random hand like K6s or 97o.

How exactly can the blind stealer stop autobetting the flop if it means giving free cards to all of these little hands and not pushing his 4-1 pot odds for bluffing the flop? There is a reason why people autobet the flop. To me it seems like Villain's "cure" is much worse than the disease it was supposed to treat.

The preceding paragraph has much more force when Villain is stealing from the field and just happened to get heads up with BB. In this case Villain is expected to have a much better average starting hand than BB and his failure to autobet the flop becomes egregious.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Stellar, how much weight do you give to the concept of "initiative"? It seems to me that "initiative" may not actually be a real advantage in a game between two perfect players.

Putting in the last raise preflop tends to limit the range of hands a player can be put on. On one hand, this can help you steal a pot when a flop hits your strong range of hands hard, but misses your particular hand. On the other hand, when your opponent can limit your range of hands, he can play better against you.

If players simply erased their memory of who put in the last raise, all that last raise you put in preflop did was allow your opponent to better define your hand.

Thus, I don't think that the way people discuss "initiative" having value is always correct. Against a weak player who will now fold too much, there is value. But against an aggressive player who can read hands, "initiative" doesn't seem to mean anything. Deciding whether to put in that last raise should be made based on the benefits in the immediate value you gain and the cost of allowing your opponent to define your range more accurately.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stellar, how much weight do you give to the concept of "initiative"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I spend a lot of time thinking about this and I still don't know much.

In regards to this thread, both main lines are an attempt to seize the initiative. One could argue that the preflop 3-bet is more intimidating because of the overpair threat. Or one could argue that an attacked launched after the flop is visible is more credible because Hero made an informed decision.

Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder. The more effective threat may be opponent-dependent.

I think the initiative can be overrated because Hero doesn't see what Villain folded. There are so many cases where you 3-bet preflop, autobet the flop, take down the pot, and feel great about your game. Until you look at your hand and reflect that whatever rubbish Villain folded, he certainly did the right thing. People don't fold good hands very much.

The initiative is a semibluffing concept and bluffs only fit certain types of hands. I commented recently in a specific situation that 3-betting QJs headsup preflop might be risky but at least it is well-motivated. A similar play with 33 is pretty hopeless because the only hands that fold postflop are the ones you hope will call you down.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

"Provided that you assume that Villain will autobet the flop there can be no "loss of value" that everyone keeps talking about."

Assume you have AA and your opponent has KK. If you 3-bet pre-flop, there's a good chance your opponent is capping (if 4 bets is the cap). Now assume that the flop comes A-K-5. There's a good chance that the flop gets capped as well. If you didn't three bet pre-flop, you would have missed out on two bets.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Provided that you assume that Villain will autobet the flop there can be no "loss of value" that everyone keeps talking about."

Assume you have AA and your opponent has KK. If you 3-bet pre-flop, there's a good chance your opponent is capping (if 4 bets is the cap). Now assume that the flop comes A-K-5. There's a good chance that the flop gets capped as well. If you didn't three bet pre-flop, you would have missed out on two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, unless Villain is a special type of dumdum (a few exist) he makes money off his preflop caps when averaged across your entire range of 3-bets. Cappers have better average hands than the people they 3-bet.

Second, there is a certain number of raises after which the cowboys will "get it" and just call you down. This number of raises is player-specific, but I don't see why on average you wouldn't get an extra raise postflop to make up for the raise you lose preflop. If the cap on the flop stops the show, then we can just start up again on the turn until he finally slows down.

Third, in this specific case I would greatly prefer to have called preflop. It's going to be much harder to figure out that KK is no good after I just call preflop. Even if he knows I never 3-bet my possible hand range is still larger and the chance of AA correspondingly less.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

Tilt can and often does play a huge factor when playing heads up even at high limits. Whether these people are "dumdums" or rocket scientists is irrelevant.

Against most opponents, I agree that not 3-betting pre-flop can be made up for post-flop. But against tilting or ultra-aggressive opponents, you could be losing out on bets.

"Third, in this specific case I would greatly prefer to have called preflop. It's going to be much harder to figure out that KK is no good after I just call preflop. Even if he knows I never 3-bet my possible hand range is still larger and the chance of AA correspondingly less."

To say it's going to be much harder to figure out that KK is no good after you just call pre-flop is absurd. An average high limit heads up player 3-bets 20% of his hands pre-flop (I have 270,000 datamined hands of 300-600 to prove it). AA accounts for .45% of that 20% hand range. That means your opponent can be roughly 2.25% surer than normal that you have AA. After an ace flops, you only have three ways to make aces instead of six so he can't even be 2.25% surer.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

As I said earlier Im not an expert at hu. But today I tried playing like this, always call in BB and checkraise flop if I liked it. I played 3-4 hours at $5/10 and $10/20 and the guys I played against was poor but I noticed a few things:

1) Its much easier to play this way, u dont have to think until he does something on flop. U dont have to mix it up preflop and on flop.

2) Since u always play the same way its pretty easy to detect patterns in your opponents play (at least against the players I played), you always do the same and now its up to them to get a good mix of valuebetting/bluffs/slowplays on flop.

3) Bad players almost always call when u flopcheckraise them, no matter what hand they got, but if u 3bet preflop they will fold flop if they got nothing, so u often get 2 bets from them on flop when they got 3 outs or less. (This made me start to 3bet some of the weaker hands of my normal 3betting range, like KJ or small pocketp.)

4) When they see that u never raise preflop and never bet flop the once I played tried to counter that which made it easier to read them (cause they did it so clumsy) and made them play less then optimal (if they had seen my hands).

Im still not convinced its a good way to play against all type of players and against players very good at adapting. But I really dont know.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

ok, i think my style at hu has always been somewaht close to this. i only raise my primos but rarely fold anything else. fold like 5%. prly too tight tho. kurosh would know. regardless against most players they cant recognize your 3bet range anyway so it clearly gains value.

Re: 3-bet pre-flop or check-raise the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tilt can and often does play a huge factor when playing heads up even at high limits. Whether these people are "dumdums" or rocket scientists is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are definitely players who have specific leaks that make the preflop 3-bet a must. A classic is the autocapper who must have the preflop initiative at all cost. Anyone on wild tilt is in the same category. So are certain unpredictable bad players who erase their memories when the flop hits and don't autobet at all.

No matter what poker strategy someone advocates there is an opponent who makes it look very, very good. No matter how strongly I criticize a play in general, I would be the first to say that you should use it against the right opponent.

So I agree with you, but I'm really discussing decent opponents who are playing well right now.

[ QUOTE ]
To say it's going to be much harder to figure out that KK is no good after you just call pre-flop is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An average high limit heads up player 3-bets 20% of his hands pre-flop (I have 270,000 datamined hands of 300-600 to prove it). AA accounts for .45% of that 20% hand range.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a math problem here. Assuming a 20% free bettor always 3-bet AA it should account for 2.26% of his 3-bets.

But that is hardly the issue. By the time KK has reason to suspect a problem on an AKx board there will normally have been several raises. At that point Hero's logical hand range is quite narrow--just a handful of hands that hit the board very hard. It will often happen that some of those hands can be ruled out by the failure to 3-bet preflop. Perhaps ten possible starting hands of which 3 are AA may shrink to only six possible starting hands if you can rule hands out using the preflop play. So Villain sees that his 70% chance of being good is really only 50% and he applies the brakes in time to save a bet or two.