Countering Light 3-bettors: Strategies other than 4-bet Bluffing

Okay, so it seems like every single regular on the planet has read an article about 3-betting light when playing NLHE 6 max. And while 4-bet bluffing is great, its also high variance, and people start to catch on.

So my question is, what else can we do to counter act light 3-betting strategies? I'm just gonna throw out some ideas, some conventional, and some very non-conventional. Hopefully this will spawn some good discussion (or you guys telling me how terribad my ideas are) similar to the 4-bet bluffing thread.

1) Tighten up preflop. This is pretty obvious. However, most regs play very tight (most have less than 20% VPIP, even at 6 max). Additionally, we're often really deep against regs (since we're both eating fish), so we want the disguise factor that raising gives us.

2) Limp more & mix in some limp/3-bets. Now, I generally hate open-limping. But if we're consistently getting 3-bet from players in late position, would it make more sense to limp/call and own them postflop (since there's a lot of spewy postflop regs), or limp/3-bet? Its hard to have a real edge against regs these days preflop, so does it make sense to make a -EV move preflop in order to get them to make bigger mistakes postflop? Would limp/calling a hand like KJs in the cutoff to a button raise be that bad if villain raises a huge portion of his range on the button? Mixing in some limp/3-bets might also be nice as well? Its a move I've never used (really, never), so I'd like some feedback on it.

3) Squeeze trap. So if we're against some squeezy players in the blind/button, what kinds of hands are we looking to squeeze trap with? We also forgoe a lot of value when we don't 3-bet, and end up heads up with a hand like QQ/JJ with a lot of money behind.

4) Never 4-bet, and extend our 3-bet calling range. Some players 3-bet really light, especially from the blinds. And they usually 3-bet a very polarized range. Since they do so, can we call in position with a wider range than just AQs+/TT+? If so, what hands are we looking to float 3-bets with? Is KQos good enough? 99? And by never 4-betting, our range for calling 3-bets should then be really strong, and it adds some deception for when we hold AK/QQ+. However, we really miss out on some value by not value 4-betting our big hands.


But yeah, these days, I think preflop poker has a really small edge. But obviously there's gotta be some way, or combination of ways, to exploit players these days that have a wide 3-betting range.

Discuss?

I'll admit that I'm new to the concept of "3-betting light". Of course, I know what 3-betting is. But how light is "light"? I get 3-bet what I would call "heavy" quite a bit, meaning anywhere from triple my raise to a push. So what size 3-bet would actually be considered "light?

Knowing this would actually help some of us know if we should call the 3-bet, fold, or 4-bet. But I do agree with trying to avoid the situation and I would say that tighter preflop play helps. Plus, limping is a 2nd option when at an overall passive table (high table VP$IP, low PFR%).

Its not the size, its the range of hands that opponents 3-bet us with. The size is usually the same.

Check your PM's. You might find some more info there.

Calling in position with deep stacks is definitely something that shouldn't be thrown out the window.

With 130+BB stacks, I call a fairly large chunk of hands in position when a light 3-bettor takes me on from the blinds. His problem, when bluffing (what consists of a "bluff" is vague in this sense, but I'll go with "any hand that he doesn't think has a reasonable chance of being best if we call"), is that he's going to be out of position in a big pot but still fairly much money behind with a mediocre hand on almost every flop.

A 3-bet usually makes the bet between 10 and 16 big blinds. So the pot will be in the 20-30BB range when we hit the flop. On the surface, it would seem that he needs us to fold more than half the time on the flop when we call him in order for him to be "immediately profitable."

Here's the problem with that reasoning: It's not "immediate." There's a flaw in calling it "immediate" profit when an opponent folds often enough to make it an "immediate" profit. You see it a lot pertaining to blind stealing. If the blinds fold often enough, you make an "immediate" profit by stealing.

That's only true if you figure to average a better net than zero postflop when your opponent doesn't fold. And a lot of people are really bad postflop. So if you have negative implied odds when you see a flop - like, say, being out of position with a mediocre hand in a big pot vs. a decent player - 3-betting light isn't going to be profitable even if your opponent folds just more than the fictitious break-even point.

Of course, it would be immediately profitable if our strategy when called was simply to always check/fold. But for how long do you suppose that strategy would be immediately profitable? Heh.

(I hope everyone realizes that I'm not arguing against C9, here, btw. Just a tendency I've noticed for some people to be extremely spewy with 3-bets from the blinds.)

Now, as for countering light 3-bets with 4-bets, this is a valid strategy and should be employed. But not very often. My own bluffing-to-big-hand ratio is just over 1:3 when I 4-bet. I'm tighter than most regulars in that regard, but I have a reason for it: 4-betting being profitable doesn't automatically qualify it as the right play. If there's more money on average to be had from calling, then you should call. Versus the regulars, flatting in position is definitely viable, even - occasionally - as a delayed bluff.

Also, 4-betting means the hand is essentially over preflop; most of the time, our opponent shoves or folds, ending the hand. As you pointed out, the preflop edge for good players vs regulars nowadays isn't that great (by the way, table select!), but if we think we have a postflop edge, we should try to play more flops, not end hands preflop. Especially in position.

I don't know if this comes off as incoherent rambling or not, but I've had a long day, and it was also a topic I have a bunch of pent up stuff to say about. So there.

LOL! I'm such a noob. I think I've been doing this and didn't know what it was called.

Uh, sorta? You make a lot of very general points. So lemme try to get to the heart of the issue by bringing up some specifics.

Take this reg from my 25$ NL game:

Stats over 1100 hands:
Notes: Knows I 4-bet bluff
VPIP: 20%
PFR: 17% (raises 35% of buttons)
Steal %: 34%
3-bet %: 6.8% (10% from button, 8% from SB, 6% from BB)
Fold to 3-bet %: 67%
Postflop Aggression Frequency/Factor: 27%/3.5
C-bet %: 59%
Fold to C-bet %: 64%
Squeeze %: 7.5%
4-bet %: 0%

Showdown Experience:
Call 3-bet: 22, 66
---------------------

How should we handle the following 2 situations? Assuming we have a Laggy image.


What hands are you 3-betting with *for value*? What hands are you squeeze trapping with against Reg?


What's your calling range/4-betting range in this spot if we're 100bb's deep? 200bb's deep?


But yeah, even against people who 3-bet way too much, I still think flatting is a great way to take their moneys even though a 4-bet bluff will work a ton of the time. Example hand:

===========================================
3-bet % for villain = 11%
Postflop Aggression Freq/Factor = 44%/3.5

Pre-Flop: Hero is BTN with Q A, 100bb's deep
CO posts BB out of position, MP folds, CO checks, Hero raises to $1.25, SB folds, BB raises to $4.10, CO folds, Hero calls $2.85

Flop: ($8.55) 6 A T (2 players)
BB bets $7, Hero calls $7

Turn: ($22.55) 6 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: ($22.55) 8 (2 players)
BB bets $13.89 and is all-in, Hero calls $13.89

Results: BB shows T7
===========================================

Now obviously AQo falls easily within' the calling range here, but I could've easily 4-bet bluffed it profitably. I wouldn't have won as much either. However, is KQ a profitable call here given an 11% 3-bet frequency? JTs? 88?