Countering the Chronic 3-bettor

[sweetjazz]

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.

[Lestat]

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?

[sweetjazz]

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.

[elindauer]

[ 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

[Surf]

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

Surf

[climber]

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

[sweetjazz]

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.

[baronzeus]

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.

[Wynton]

[ 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.

[helpmeout]

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.