3-bet question.
Hello, Jeff, don't throw tomatoes at me, please. There was a question-there is no solution...
I pay attention to the fact that when they put 3-bet on the size, they go crazy, as they want... but, as it seems, there is a standard.
3-3. 5 x c positions, 4x c blainds ...
With blainds it is clear, we want to get more folequity, because our implementation will be worse
Interested in playing with buttons and CO against the early ones in 6-max, why no one uses the size of 2.5 x, here are the thoughts:
1) We will compensate for the lower foldequity by implementing our
equity post-flop, taking into account our position
Here is the main question, maybe it's just not compensated, or there is some easy adjustment to this size...
2) The possibility of expanding 3beta (for two sizes with a balance)
3) The ability to play from a position in a wider spectrum also in 4-bet, in case the opponents start to expand the 4-bet for us, and they should
I understand that with the top of our range, we want to make the size wider, to implement the hand in a more overclocked bank... to do this, we can make a separate size, let's say 3.7 x against the early ones, where we balance the hands of the 3 percent spectrum of the top with the lowest, which presumably without this we will play in the negative.... And you can do it without it) Use 2.5 for the entire range
I've never used 2.5 x... but the scary thing is, I don't have an understanding of why not to use and why I use 3.5 x