In sb against aggressive bb villian in heads up pots

[nasty bent gorilla]

How do you respond against someone who 3bets wide?

Do you open a slightly tighter range that can stand a 3bet; or limp 3bet? Do you even open a much tighter range and 4bet with high card blocker hands? KQ/J type hands etc..

 

[Aballinamion]

How do you respond against someone who 3bets wide?

Do you open a slightly tighter range that can stand a 3bet; or limp 3bet? Do you even open a much tighter range and 4bet with high card blocker hands? KQ/J type hands etc..

We have many options in this scenario, playing from the SB x BB, if I understood you properly:

a) To switch tables: we play to exploit and not to be exploited. In situations like this one we can get into the opponent’s level (of mind) and not to play so good as we wanted to.

b) we 4-bet with a much lighter range hoping that villain will have the common sense to fold. But not so wide, at maximum 8% range.

c) to open a tighter range but then we aren’t playing from the SB: many of the hands that it comes to us in fold we want to raise and get BB to fold.

Conclusion: the first option seems the best, to find a table where will have a tight player sitting in the BB, whether an aggressive or passive. Versus a loose aggressive we can inevitably fall into his leveling. We aren’t playing poker to level against our opponents, but to be profitable.

 

[nasty bent gorilla]

a) To switch tables: we play to exploit and not to be exploited.

Agree this is best, I was assuming there was only one game running, working out how to make best of situation, while staying.

b) we 4-bet with a much lighter range hoping that villain will have the common sense to fold. But not so wide, at maximum 8% range.

I guess you answered, still wondering if adjusting to a balanced limp 3bet strategy is better than a 4bet one: This is specific to hero in sb, villain in bb, heads up pots.

Similar comparison could be applied when we have button, aggressive villain in sb. Obviously different as position in hand is reversed, and we have other opponent to consider.

Versus a loose aggressive we can inevitably fall into his leveling. We aren’t playing poker to level against our opponents, but to be profitable.

To play devil's advocate, It might be worthwhile staying in these situations to learn how to play optimally against loose aggressive villains OOP.

 

[Station_Master]

I think a solid mixed limping/raising strategy is a good option, as many villains wont know the best way to respond.
A LAG could well raise 90% hands believing you be to weak, and then will have difficulty defending v your 3bets.
Also you are going to get to see more flops overall and realise your equity better (hopefully, depending how well you and your opponent play post flop).

Also note I'm more inclined to defend the SB the bigger it is in proportion to the BB. E.g. at 15c/25c I am defending wider than 10c/25c.

 

[Aballinamion]

To play devil's advocate, It might be worthwhile staying in these situations to learn how to play optimally against loose aggressive villains OOP.

Do as you like. I like to use the fundamentals of poker quite often, i.e, the objective of poker is to play in position against weaker opponents, and when I say weaker I mean players that we can exploit.
Another objective of cash tables is to steal the blinds: the table is not a school class where we can afford to be losing in order to learn how to play versus TAG, LAG, etc
It seems a lot that you cannot help yourself to face a LAG player and show it that you are better. I’m quite sure you are, but the problem is you want to prove it.
As I said, do as you like it.

 

[Station_Master]

Do as you like. I like to use the fundamentals of poker quite often, i.e, the objective of poker is to play in position against weaker opponents, and when I say weaker I mean players that we can exploit.
Another objective of cash tables is to steal the blinds: the table is not a school class where we can afford to be losing in order to learn how to play versus TAG, LAG, etc
It seems a lot that you cannot help yourself to face a LAG player and show it that you are better. I’m quite sure you are, but the problem is you want to prove it.
As I said, do as you like it.

Sometimes there will be fish on the other side of the table, so it will still be best to stay. If not I agree leaving might be better, but either way learning how to deal with such players is useful.

I wouldn't want to pay villain for a lesson, but just because they are aggressive doesnt mean they are any good. It might just be a case of figuring them out.

 

[Aballinamion]

Sometimes there will be fish on the other side of the table, so it will still be best to stay. If not I agree leaving might be better, but either way learning how to deal with such players is useful.

I wouldn't want to pay villain for a lesson, but just because they are aggressive doesnt mean they are any good. It might just be a case of figuring them out.

Thanks for your input and to keep a healthy debate.
I understand your point but there are inherent and innumerable problems to face a LAG or maniac player.
A loose player will force us to do things we wouldn’t be doing. For example, we 4-bet light SB x BB and LAG shoves all-in.
Personally I like to play hands and situations where I own the control of the pot and of the situation/object.
On top of that, LAG players can make you lose your patience, the same example above, we 4-bet AK and LAG shoves all-in from the BB: we call, LAG shows Q7s and takes the pot. Okay, we are winning preflop and in the long run, but in the short term we are losing our focus:
Now our objective isn’t to steal the blinds from the SB, but to beat a player that is unbalanced to aggression, fatally leading us to play like the way it plays.
Many LAG players are weak and they don’t know how to play postflop, so they make the pot grow most of times giving us no room to creative gameplay.
Of course that where be times that we call a 100 BB pot having any ace and win, but we are not in control of the situation, and to me this is a huge issue.
If player in the BB isn’t letting me steal the blinds easily, I will look forward a table where I find one who will allow me to do it.

 

[ScooperNova]

In blind vs blind action, I would simply tighten up with starting hands tremendously. I tend to fold SB waaaaaaay more than most players I see, both good and bad ones. I'd rather move on and lose a small blind with 94 personally, but some people are very adamant about defending blinds. In a cash game, I feel like this is way less important than tournaments. When you get a strong hand, don't pussyfoot around. If you're playing with a lot of effective BB, These players will gladly risk 10-30 bb making "bad calls" based on implied odds, trying to get your whole stack. The two best words here are simply SELECTIVE AGGRESSION.

 

[dreamer13]

Being able to defend well against 3-bets in modern poker is one of the biggest keys to your success. It is very important that you find a good balance between knowing when to call, fold, or even reverse (4-bet).

 

[Gallarado777]

Yes, you need to choose against which opponent you are doing it and you need to understand correctly when and how to play, of course, on average, if a player is 3bet, then you need to wait for a good hand and play from it and take his chips, but sometimes you can play 4bet when he often does it and you can do it a couple of times just to pick up the moment