Countering the Chronic 3-bettor

[cartman]

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

[The Bryce]

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.

[helpmeout]

steal less

use your positional advantage to take freecards etc

[Victor]

flop good and get to showdown.

[Surf]

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

[moorobot]

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

[sweetjazz]

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.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

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.

[cartman]

[ 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

[sweetjazz]

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.)