Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

What's Your Small Blind Preflop Call Range?

Let's assume 9-handed 100BB preflop and a 4X raise. I used to call with like 87s but then I started thinking is that even +EV? We have the worst position, even worse than UTG. And am I opening 87s UTG? Hell no. Then why am I calling in SB with it?

Could you please post your rough SB call range?
«1

Comments

  • BlackBoxEquity Posts: 165Subscriber
    Any callers in between? If not, varies on where the open is from.

    (Rough baseline for me)

    Vs UTG open
    3b: AA-QQ, AKs-AJs, AKo
    Call: JJ-77

    Vs BTN open, no calling range, just 3b or folding most of the time
    3b: 66+, all suited Aces, all suited Broadway, AKo-AJo, KQo

    Something in between vs opens from UTG+1 to CO.
  • Joanna Posts: 428Member
    edited December 2016
    BlackBoxEquity said:
    Any callers in between? If not, varies on where the open is from.

    (Rough baseline for me)

    Vs UTG open
    3b: AA-QQ, AKs-AJs, AKo
    Call: JJ-77

    Vs BTN open, no calling range, just 3b or folding most of the time
    3b: 66+, all suited Aces, all suited Broadway, AKo-AJo, KQo

    Something in between vs opens from UTG+1 to CO.
    Thanks, I feel a lot of people have never asked themselves this question and answered it. I for sure didn't until now and I regret it.

  • Jacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    If there are 3 callers I'd call. If there are two callers possibly - depends how fishy they are and capable of paying off if we hit. Heads up or 3 ways it's a fold.
  • stayinschool Posts: 2,969Subscriber
    Depends but I think that the 3 betting or folding strategy has good merit in a lot of situations. Especially in drop rake games where taking it down pre rake free is a pretty nice bonus to using a strategy that gets more folds pre flop.
  • Joanna Posts: 428Member
    stayinschool said:
    Depends but I think that the 3 betting or folding strategy has good merit in a lot of situations.
    so do i. what's your 3b range then? :)

  • md_donk Posts: 25Subscriber
    Joanna said:
    And am I opening 87s UTG? Hell no. Then why am I calling in SB with it?
    These are somewhat different situations though. UTG you have no info on anyone else's hand, in SB you've seen everyone act.

    That being said, I'm not smart enough to offer a good pre-flop calling range so I'll defer to others.

    But I'll offer one other thought. I've struggled to set-mine profitably from OOP without the PF initiative. I feel like when I hit, whatever I do looks strong other than check-call all three streets, and in my player pool the pre raiser will not typically bet all three streets anyway. So if calling to set mine is questionable, what does that say about SCs? That leaves high pairs and broadways, which lines up with BlackBoxEquity's suggestion about playing them...usually for a raise so that you have the initiative.

  • Jacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    edited December 2016
    md_donk said:
    Joanna said:
    And am I opening 87s UTG? Hell no. Then why am I calling in SB with it?
    These are somewhat different situations though. UTG you have no info on anyone else's hand, in SB you've seen everyone act.

    That being said, I'm not smart enough to offer a good pre-flop calling range so I'll defer to others.

    But I'll offer one other thought. I've struggled to set-mine profitably from OOP without the PF initiative. I feel like when I hit, whatever I do looks strong other than check-call all three streets, and in my player pool the pre raiser will not typically bet all three streets anyway. So if calling to set mine is questionable, what does that say about SCs? That leaves high pairs and broadways, which lines up with BlackBoxEquity's suggestion about playing them...usually for a raise so that you have the initiative.

    You'd have to consider by that logic that you could be check/raise bluffing OOP if you're never able to get full value. That would mean opponents are folding too often. I'm not advocating playing more from the SB, just pointing out how it goes both ways. I would agree with you that it's generally not profitable to set mine OOP without very deep stacks. And against good opponents it's probably just not the best play.
  • Joanna Posts: 428Member
    edited December 2016
    Jacklamb said:

    You'd have to consider by that logic that you could be check/raise bluffing OOP if you're never able to get full value. That would mean opponents are folding too often. I'm not advocating playing more from the SB, just pointing out how it goes both ways.
    Correct. But the light checkraises AND leads should be executed from BB, not SB, in my opinion.

  • Jacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    Joanna said:
    Jacklamb said:

    You'd have to consider by that logic that you could be check/raise bluffing OOP if you're never able to get full value. That would mean opponents are folding too often. I'm not advocating playing more from the SB, just pointing out how it goes both ways.
    Correct. But the light checkraises AND leads should be executed from BB, not SB, in my opinion.

    Why is that?
    If you're playing any hands out of the SB you'll have to be leading/check raising light at least some of the time as well as from the BB
  • Joanna Posts: 428Member
    Jacklamb said:
    Joanna said:
    Jacklamb said:

    You'd have to consider by that logic that you could be check/raise bluffing OOP if you're never able to get full value. That would mean opponents are folding too often. I'm not advocating playing more from the SB, just pointing out how it goes both ways.
    Correct. But the light checkraises AND leads should be executed from BB, not SB, in my opinion.

    Why is that?
    If you're playing any hands out of the SB you'll have to be leading/check raising light at least some of the time as well as from the BB
    Because we should be flatting very few if ANY hands in SB while many hands can be profitably flatted in BB.

  • Jacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    edited December 2016
    Why is that? I think there are often situations with several limpers where we want to complete from the SB. Unless you're strictly talking about a raise and no callers.
    The title of this thread is "What is your SB preflop call range?" So you seem to be open to the idea that one exists.
  • JKH Posts: 835Subscriber
    edited December 2016
    I think always having to 3bet from the small blind is not optimal in standard soft live games compared as compared to online games and this is why.

    3 reasons

    1. Most random bb in a live do not 3 bet a lot like they do online so unless this is incorrect in your current live game I think calling out of the ab is fine.
    2. Players call 3 bets a lot more in live games in and out of position so why not bloat and play pots in position.
    3. Stacks are deeper in live games they often start off at 200bb and can get up to a a thousand bb sometimes. The deeper the stack the more the value of position increases and the absolute value of the hands becomes closer. (ie preflop ranges can and should open deepstacked)

    So to recap if 100bb effective with a good player who likes to squeeze in the big blind sure I like 3 betting from the small blind a lot but this is just not the case in the live games I play in and if it was I would likely look for a table change.
    Please tell me how, where and why I got this wrong
  • Joanna Posts: 428Member
    Jacklamb said:

    The title of this thread is "What is your SB preflop call range?" So you seem to be open to the idea that one exists.
    It certainly exists for many live players; doesn't necessarily mean that it should ;)
  • Joanna Posts: 428Member
    edited December 2016
    JKH said:

    1. Most random bb in a live do not 3 bet a lot like they do online so unless this is incorrect in your current live game I think calling out of the ab is fine.
    The risk of a squeeze by BB is one of the reasons for 3b/fold strategy but is not a major one.

    2. Players call 3 bets a lot more in live games in and out of position so why not bloat and play pots in position.
    Depends on your game, image, etc. You would rather play a pot that's likely more multi-way, a capped range, still OOP and without the initiative? Part of why we 3bet OOP is because we do not want to play OOP postflop and want to charge opponents for the privilege.

    3. Stacks are deeper in live games they often start off at 200bb and can get up to a a thousand bb sometimes. The deeper the stack the more the value of position increases and the absolute value of the hands becomes closer. (ie preflop ranges can and should open deepstacked)
    Not 100% on this but I read the value of position goes down as stack depth increases.

    So to recap if 100bb effective with a good player who likes to squeeze in the big blind sure I like 3 betting from the small blind a lot but this is just not the case in the live games I play in and if it was I would likely look for a table change.
    Please tell me how, where and why I got this wrong
    I wouldn't say that you're wrong because this is not an exact science and it's very possible I'm wrong but I do have a different opinion on this. BTW what's your flat range?

  • pray4blank Posts: 141Subscriber
    Joanna said:

    3. Stacks are deeper in live games they often start off at 200bb and can get up to a a thousand bb sometimes. The deeper the stack the more the value of position increases and the absolute value of the hands becomes closer. (ie preflop ranges can and should open deepstacked)
    Not 100% on this but I read the value of position goes down as stack depth increases.

    [quote]


    Intuitively, I would think the opposite is true.
  • JKH Posts: 835Subscriber
    Value off position for sure increases as stack depth increases this is fact
  • Jack7777 Posts: 655Subscriber
    I try to figure out what I would 4X with from that position. If I can match it, I call. If I'm smashing it, I 3B or still flat.
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    Joanna-
    I would echo that position matters more and more as effective stacks increase.

    Think about 3betting the BB with AA and getting called by the initial raiser.
    In the first scenario you are 80 BBs effective , and in the second scenario you are 500 BBs effective.

    At which stack depth are you more comfortable proceeding on a flop of 79Tss when your opponent raises your flop bet?
    What about if the flop is Q73r and your opponent raises your flop bet and bombs the turn?

    Absolute strength of preflop holdings becomes less and less important as stack depth increases.
  • FreeLunch Posts: 1,311Pro
    The answers in this thread are a great example of why formulaic thinking is not LPO. Not a single person has asked the most important question - "what mistakes does the raiser make the most". Your calling/raising range should be largely based on the specific mistakes the villain makes. For example, you need very different range if you are against a villain who can handread and will not stack off light then your range vs a nitty old man who will always lose 100bb with a overpair. You need to know the raising range and mistakes of this specific villain to know what hands to play. Another example using your 87s - and yes I usually fold that this shallow, but there are villains who, if they don't cbet the flop are 100% faceup and can be bluffed on turn with even a small bet. Those villains are often the type that will stack off to an overpair. Vs them 87s can be a call (especially if any deeper). There are villains whose cbet size tells you everything and you can check raise them when they size indicates weakness. Lots more examples but you get the point, which is that formulaic thinking is not LPO
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    FreeLunch said:
    The answers in this thread are a great example of why formulaic thinking is not LPO. Not a single person has asked the most important question - "what mistakes does the raiser make the most". Your calling/raising range should be largely based on the specific mistakes the villain makes. For example, you need very different range if you are against a villain who can handread and will not stack off light then your range vs a nitty old man who will always lose 100bb with a overpair. You need to know the raising range and mistakes of this specific villain to know what hands to play. Another example using your 87s - and yes I usually fold that this shallow, but there are villains who, if they don't cbet the flop are 100% faceup and can be bluffed on turn with even a small bet. Those villains are often the type that will stack off to an overpair. Vs them 87s can be a call (especially if any deeper). There are villains whose cbet size tells you everything and you can check raise them when they size indicates weakness. Lots more examples but you get the point, which is that formulaic thinking is not LPO
    I tried my friend google and even he doesn't know what LPO means. My prime contenders are: Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra, Libertarian Party of Ohio, and Low Power Oscillator.
Sign In or Register to comment.