Countering the Chronic 3-bettor

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ 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.

[Lestat]

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.

[Wynton]

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?

[Wynton]

[ 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?

[Lestat]

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.

[sweetjazz]

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.

[Lestat]

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.

[sweetjazz]

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.

[The Bryce]

Good posts sweetjazz.

[Lestat]

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.