Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

I have historically attempted to steal the blinds alot. Currently I range somewhere between 40% and 45% attempt to steal. My question is how best to counter an opponent who, when I open raise from the CO or button, is a chronic 3-bettor from the blinds.

I suspect that the answer is some combination of tightening my stealing range, especially when I have no showdown value unimproved, and capping more liberally.

What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Cartman

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Though I've tamed my stealing down considerably this sounds like another spot where "if you're going to peel, raise" is going to be pretty effective. Raise for showdown and fastplay your weak hands like mad. Start capping light with the hands that are going to benefit from it the most (smaller suited cards, any PP, etc). Cut some of the hands that flop terribly when they miss (A2o, this means you). Make them hate being OOP, and show tenacity if you happen to run cold for a bit. You've got the upper hand.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

steal less

use your positional advantage to take freecards etc

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

flop good and get to showdown.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Cartman,

ask easier questions. thx.

to be honest, when i encounter this type of player, i tighten my stealing standards considerably. IMO you can make up postflop what you give up preflop by stealing less, since he's building big pots OOP with poor holdings, and you can just give him the reins any time you have a showdownable hand and let him bet himself to death.

Surf

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

against a player who has a fold button on his version of the software I think The Bryce is right about small suited cards-if he is going to call you down with a high hu unless you send him a screenshot that proves he's drawing dead then forget the small suited cards and start capping with the hands that have equity edge vs his capping range. So if he has a low stsd% I think the bryce's advice is best

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

I believe that stealing > 40% is incorrect against players who play back aggressively. So you must tighten up your range and pick your stealing spots with marginal hands.

Second, I believe that they are making a mistake 3-betting often from the blinds. They are building a big pot OOP with hands that will miss the flop a lot. So you must show constant tempered aggression after the flop. Release your truly hopeless hands but really pound on them and use your ability to read their hands to get maximum value when you have something and scale back your aggression as soon as you realize they are headed to showdown with a range that is beating yours badly.

A simple beginning strategy is to peel a lot of flops when you have reason to continue on in the hand, and then raise a lot of turns if the player is aggressive enough to keep betting OOP until facing resistance. You will basically put him in a really tough spot a lot.

This advice is all based on the idea that your opponent is going to fold from time to time. Once you sense that he is frustrated by your aggression and feels like he has to showdown any and everything, cut back your bluffs. Valuebet the heck out of your made hands and make him pay 3.5 BBs to see that you have something.

Lastly, I read your post as mostly referring to 3-bets from the BB. These are less common -- as 3-betting from the BB is usually not very desirable. Against a 3-bet from the SB the same advice applies if he is 3-betting light here. But I wouldn't be as quick to assume SB is playing back at me unless he has done it a lot in other positions as well. Usually SB 3-bets of blind steals are rather legitimate hands.

Things get trickier against a BB who doesn't 3-bet any of your steal attempts and checkraises the flop a lot. If you are too loose in your steal attempts you can be put in a lot of tough spots. Raising marginal hands can still be profitable but you are going to have accept a high amount of variance to reach the point where your profit is going to show for sure.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Obviously, you're going to be doing more capping. The degree of tightning depends on how much better (or worse) you play than him postflop. In general, I'm not especially reluctant to go to war with someone when I'll have position on him every time.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

[ QUOTE ]
In general, I'm not especially reluctant to go to war with someone when I'll have position on him every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind it at all vs someone who is capable of folding because I will take down some pots when I have draws, etc. It is against the hyper aggressive guys who are virtually guaranteed to keep the pedal down postflop regardless of their cards and regardless of whether I raise somewhere that I hate to get involved with when my hand has no showdown value. Basically, when I have a 98 type hand, he is going to win the pot unless I make a pair or better and that seems like a difficult obstacle to overcome even if he does compensate me well when I do make a hand.

Do you still not mind going to war against that type of opponent?

Thanks,
Cartman

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

cartman, against such opponents you want them to be winning over 50% of the pots. They get all the small pots and get hammered by paying multiple big bets when you have a decent hand. The more hyperaggressive they are, the lower the standards are for a hand to be "decent".

It's high variance but it's profitable if the guy is hyperaggressive postflop but not very good. You just wait until you make a hand and raise him on a big street (usually the turn). By this point he's bloated the pot to the point that he feels he has to call you down to keep you from stealing pots. (Or if he does release hands you can add some turn semibluffs in as well, in proportion to how often he folds the turn.)

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In general, I'm not especially reluctant to go to war with someone when I'll have position on him every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind it at all vs someone who is capable of folding because I will take down some pots when I have draws, etc. It is against the hyper aggressive guys who are virtually guaranteed to keep the pedal down postflop regardless of their cards and regardless of whether I raise somewhere that I hate to get involved with when my hand has no showdown value. Basically, when I have a 98 type hand, he is going to win the pot unless I make a pair or better and that seems like a difficult obstacle to overcome even if he does compensate me well when I do make a hand.

Do you still not mind going to war against that type of opponent?

Thanks,
Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't mind. It's sort of an implied odds situation really, if he's willing to go off for plenty of bets with second pair, bad kicker when you have a straight. Besides that, it's rare that anyone truly shows down every hand (and someone who did would be a terrible player). If it feels like you've been forced to play showdown poker, maybe it's just that you're missing a lot of flops or running kind of bad or playing a little scared.

Metagame wise, showing down something like 98 will also tend to encourage his bad play.

btw, you can conceivably also open-limp, which will (a) confuse the hell out of him; (b) allow you to see three cards relatively cheaply.

Basically, I think of my Button as my blind - nobody is about to steal it from me.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Well, I'm one of the chronic 3-bettors against chronic stealers.

Capping with a lot of hands wouldn't help my cause, but I still think you'd do well to tighten up some against opponents who will punish over-aggressiveness. There's a reason why 3-betting a chronic stealer is the correct play.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Cartman,

You steal so much more than me (I think I'm in the low-mid 30s) that I wonder how much that affects your entire game/image.

In other words, I assume that your game is synchronized enough so that you are fully aware of your image from stealing 43% or so, which allows you to earn money in different ways than someone like me, who steals considerably less. And if this is the case, I wonder whether it's worth it for you to tone down your steal frequency, even against a chronic 3-better; for by doing so, perhaps you will have a different image, limiting some of your usual opportunities (albeit while opening up others).

One other point: are these opponents who concern you frequently 3-betting everyone, or focusing their 3-bets on you, in an attempt to quell your aggression?

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason why 3-betting a chronic stealer is the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate please? My natural inclination is to defend more and try to get to sd more, rather than 3-bet more. Am I wrong?

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

It depends what your position is. I'm more inclined to 3-bet out of the sb, because it can be important to pressure the bb out. Your offsuited aces and kings play much better heads-up when out of position. Even 1 additional player (with position on you), severely reduces showdown potential and hence, profitability. If the BB plays well (i.e. he knows what you're doing and will play more tenaciously as a result), then I will call just call (instead of 3-betting), more often with hands devoid of high-card strength. But also notice that even this punishes the chronic stealer, since he now has to get through two players, making his steals unprofitable.

From the BB (after the sb folds), I 3-bet with most hands I think are best pre-flop or have him dominated. This is simple math and gaining pre-flop equity. Hands like ATo, KJo, etc. will dominate many hands a chronic stealer will raise with. It's important to punish those hands.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Lestat, I think 3-betting from the BB is pretty suboptimal. A better, though also not optimal, strategy would be to call and reassess after the flop. This is because when you 3-bet you naturally have to lead out on every flop. You steal the initiative briefly but you get in awkward spots when the flop misses you.

By waiting to see the flop, you can choose what to do in response to the continuation bet. Your range is wider -- which is important in thwarting a tough stealer. You can play meekly when you flop top pair A's or K's with a medium kicker in order to lure him for more bets (or raise if your image is such that he thinks you are stealing). Or you can come out with a c/r on an A 8 6 flop with AT. Since you will often be making the same play with 98 or T9 or 76, you put your opponent in a tough spot. If he peels with KQ he may be drawing practically dead. Or he could be ahead of T9. His best play becomes to fold to all of your c/r's without a good piece himself until you are stealing enough pots that he has to stand up to you.

If you are always 3-betting your big aces from the BB, then an A 8 6 flop is a lot less scary when he has K8 or TT. He can 3-bet your flop c/r and more often than not you will be putting in 3 SB into a small pot with 87 or T9, hands which are drawing pretty slim. And even when you have him crushed with A7, say, you cannot extract much more value out of the hand because you may be dominated and are OOP.

I don't mind 3-betting from the BB against bad postflop players, but smooth calling with every hand in the BB against a blind steal seems right to me against a tough blind stealer.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

I think much of what you say has merit, but I'm still 3-betting with those hands that figure to have a stealer dominated and in trouble.

While it's true you can represent a wider range of hands, this in my opinion doesn't make up for the loss in pre-flop equity. I'm also assuming a competent player who will know how to both get off his poorer hands, yet will play back and not quietly go away just because he gets check/raised.

There is also the benefit that some stealers don't like being 3-bet and will start playing back and giving extra action with hands that don't warrant excessive action. In other words, they can trap themselves silly with very marginal holdings.

At least for me, I find it easier to play when maintaining the initiative. Don't forget these are I feel have a good chance of being best anyway. So I feel it's a little harder to ouplay me even with position.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Lestat, the one thing to remember is that whether you 3-bet before the flop and lead out or smooth call the flop and then c/r, the same amount of money has went into the pot on both sides and this is the first time in both cases that the stealer has to evaluate whether to continue on or not.

So I don't quite see how you are pushing a preflop equity edge with your big hands. Because of the unique dynamics of HU blind steals, the same amount of money goes into the pot the same way. If a tricky player started checking behind a lot of flops and altered the usual dynamics, I think 3-betting before the flop is now pushing an equity edge and making things more difficult for the stealer.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Good posts sweetjazz.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

After thinking about it, I may have overstated (or mis-stated?_ what I mean. I figured this out, because I do apply your logic when I'm in the BB. That is, I'm more likely to just call a raise from the bb than from the sb (where I'd 3-bet), and probably for the reasons you're stating.

But I STILL think it's important to 3 bet often enough. Don't forget, there are many blind hands you won't want to play and/or won't be able to continue with after the flop. I think that by failing to sufficiently 3-bet, you are encouraging the button to raise. I don't see how that can be good.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Lestat, I agree 100% with you re: 3-betting from the SB. But I still disagree with you re defending your BB. By calling with all the hands you defend with, from 65s (if you defend that, say) to AA, you will stop steals from a good button more effectively.

Against a bad player you can 3-bet before the flop with impunity and they will still be lost. But a good player will use the information you make available to him (getting a quicker read on your hand range based on your preflop play from the BB) to make better postflop decisions. The only way to counter that is to mix up your calls and raises from the BB in an optimal way (or better in a way that exploits your opponent). If you can do that, more power to you. But I find that very complicated and hard to make work out in practice.

But it's all a matter of style. If you find 3-betting works for you before the flop, there is some merit to it. Just be careful about giving information away to good players.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

So are you saying you call with pretty much ALL your hands, i.e. AA down to 65s?

Meta-game works the other way too.

Suppose a good player knows you'll never re-raise his steals. Why shouldn't he raise pretty much 100% of the time (assume the sb is a bad player and thus a non-factor or the stealer is the sb)? You can't call every time, so he picks up your blind 100% of the time you fold. You can't continue after the flop 100% of the time, so he wins your blind plus you're call a percentage of the time too. Sometimes, he'll start with the better hand, so of course raising will be profitable those times. And then there are the times he'll out-flop you and/or improve to the best hand, so he wins your money here as well.

What I'm saying is that if your opponent knows it will never cost him 3 bets, you are making it more correct for him to raise and try to steal your blind. There's just too many ways he can win. He can either pick up your blind right away, win your blind plus a bet on the flop, or out-flop you. Never re-raising gives him too many ways to make a profit. What do you think?

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Lestat, it always costs him 3 bets because he puts two in before the flop and one on the flop. (It only costs two when I fold before the flop -- but that's irregardless of whether I would 3-bet him or not before the flop with a strong hand.)

Blind stealing will always be (or should always be) profitable for someone in late position. Any hand that won't show a profit can be folded by the late position player at no cost. Defending the big blind will always come at a loss; we'll never be able to fully recoup the small bet we are forced to put in.

I don't really see where 3-betting before the flop cuts out a way for the LP raiser to profit that isn't mitigated by simply check-raising every flop with that hand. The LP raiser faces the same situation at the end...facing a small bet with 7 SB in the pot having postition with the flop cards exposed.

BTW, I don't always play my blind defense as I am suggesting here, but I am only pointing out that it has theoretical value and is one way to approach blind defense.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good posts sweetjazz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn it! I've been saying this for at least six months, and all I get is a bunch of people trying to tell me how wrong I am . sweetjazz says it, word for word, and it's all intelligent discussion and "nice posts". You suck. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

By the way sweetjazz, in my now rather long experience with this strategy, there's something else here that you are missing, which may in the end make it bad. It's true that if you make all these assumptions:

- he bets every time you call and check
- you lead every time you 3-bet

that calling and check-raising is simply superior to 3-betting and leading. He can defeat this strategy by checking the flop more, but so few people do this that it's a non-issue.

The bigger problem is in that last line, that they are only equivalent when you always lead the flop whenever you 3-bet. Why would you do that?

I've found that it's perfectly reasonable to 3-bet preflop and then just check the flop. Against aggressive opponents, it's often better to let them have the lead, especially when you actually do flop a strong hand.

Playing this way has led me into a number of interesting situations of course. So few people are used to this strategy that you have to figure out how to play each person you face. Still, I read their hands much MUCH better than they read mine, simply because they have no experience handling someone who plays this way.

When I'm coaching, I recommend that most people at least consider improving their game to the smooth-call / check-raise line. I think the best players can go even further though to the 3-bet / check lines that, I think, lead to the most profit of all.

-Eric


Eric's poker essay archive

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Shhh... don't give away the farm!

Surf

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Ive been using this 3-bet and check line a lot recently and feel it works pretty well.

However the one time i ran it past the irc guys BZ told me any good players would eat me alive playing that way...then again i try to avoid really good opponents

granted, it was totally in passing with no real discussion of the benefits/costs

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Eric,

I enjoy your posts very much. Even if it isn't publically acknowledged, anybody who understands poker knows that you are one of the best posters.

I think your 3-bet and check line is interesting and certainly something I should explore. I am not sure it isn't something a really good player couldn't exploit easier than the always call BTF and often c/r the flop. But that's probably a moot point since the application is to PartyPoker, where really good players are few and far between (at least at middle limits).

One primary argument for always calling in the BB before the flop is it prevents information leakage. In theory, one can avoid such leakage by mixing up play but that takes a lot of study and is hard to implement at the table.

At the same time, if a player is good enough to start checking behind some flops, then one needs to 3-bet before the flop frequently. So at that point the approach that you advocate needs to be studied carefully and used appropriately.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

Hi Eric,

nothing is worse than smoothcalling with a hand like A6s preflop and getting stuck with a K93 flop. I vote 3bet a lot, especially against weak opponents/ opponents you can trust. A lot of opponents can play perfectly with initiative but just play terribly without it. 3betting aggro raisers also really makes them more hesitant preflop because they're thinking "76s, again? will i just have to fold to his flop bet when he 3bets me?" and suddenly, you are playing your BB against SB a LOT more, which is very +EV.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

[ QUOTE ]

I've found that it's perfectly reasonable to 3-bet preflop and then just check the flop. Against aggressive opponents, it's often better to let them have the lead, especially when you actually do flop a strong hand.

Playing this way has led me into a number of interesting situations of course. So few people are used to this strategy that you have to figure out how to play each person you face.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't remember the last time I saw someone take the 3-bet pf, and then merely check the flop line. My recollection is that it froze me in the tracks, but turned out that the villain was simply very weak.

On the other hand, I'm at 5/10 right now, where most of us are usually confused. And I suspect that this line has a lot less value against opponents who are at the "first level" of thinking.

Re: Countering the Chronic 3-bettor
 

I normally just 3bet good hands and call/CR but if someone is a big stealer like 42%+ I'll 3bet more.

The C/R line isnt as strong as a 3bet but I think it works better when you have a semidecent hand that you dont really want to be playing OOP and putting too many bets in.

With 3betting at least you have initiative for those really funky flops that no one really hit and a weaker hand definately isnt calling.