1.

Introduction
This is Part 1 of the article series "More about 3-bet pots in NLHE 6-max". This series builds on the two preceding series "Optimal 3/4/5-bet strategies in NLHE 6-max" and "Optimal Postflop Play in NLHE 6-max". The topic is a closer look at preflop and postflop play in 3-bet pots. 3-bet pots are generally very profitable for a good player. Here are some of the reasons why: 3-bet pots are big pots And big pots are pots where weak players tend to make big mistakes. Either by getting involved in a big pot with the wrong type of starting hand, by playing too many big pots out of position, or by making big postflop mistakes. Obviously, playing the wrong types of starting hands and playing out of position both make postflop mistakes more likely. A common mistake in 3-bet pots is to raise a medium strong hand like A9s, JTs, or 77 preflop, and then call a 3-bet out of position against a good, aggressive player. This sets us up for playing a big pot out of position with a medium/weak hand postflop. Out of position against a good player we are certain to bleed chips in this scenario. Many players are uncomfortable playing 3-bet pots And when a player is uncomfortable, he will make mistakes. A common mistake among weak players is to give up way too easily postflop without a strong hand. They reason that since the pot is big, they will often be forced to put their entire stack into the pot in order to win it. And to risk their stack, they need a very strong hand. We'll discuss this more in depth in Part 2 and Part 3, but mathematically there is no reason why this should be the case. When we play a 3-bet pot, we have a stronger preflop range than in a raised pot, and we'll have a lower stack/pot ratio (SPR) postflop. This makes it easier to play hands of the type good-but-not-great correctly postflop, not harder. For example, it's easier to play JJ correctly heads-up on a 9 7 2 flop in a 3-bet pot than in a singly raised pot. Let's say that you in the first case have 3-bet JJ with 100 bb stacks and gotten called. Then you flop an overpair on the flop 9 7 2. You c-bet and get raised. In a 3-bet pot the pot size will be around 25 bb on the flop with around 88 bb remaining stacks. This gives an SPR of 88/25 = 3.5, which is a pretty good risk/reward ratio for getting all-in on the flop. It's fine to risk 3.5 times the pot on the flop in a situation where our opponent rarely has a better overpair (he would probably have 4-bet AA-QQ preflop), rarely as a set (he probably wouldn't have called the 3-bet with 22 or 77), and rarely has two pair (he would definitely not have called the 3-bet with 92 or 72, and probably not with 97 either). Compare this to the scenario where you raise JJ preflop with 100 bb stacks and get a cold-caller in position. The flop comes 9 7 2 , you c-bet and get raised. Now the pot size is typically around 8 bb with 97 bb remaining stacks. This gives an SPR of 97/8 = 12 and a poor risk/reward ratio for committing with the hand. Now our opponent can have all possible sets, and there's also a non-

negligible probability he flatted your preflop raise with 97. If he is following an optimal preflop 3/4/5-bet strategy, he will also sometimes flat with QQ in position (if you have raised a tight range from early position). So all in all you have much more to think about here than you did in the 3-bet pot. So we see that hands that can be marginal in singly raised pots can be much easier to play in 3-bet pots. Both because of a lower stack/pot ratio, and because opponent hand ranges can be narrower and easier to read. You might feel uncomfortable committing your entire stack with a marginal hand in a 3-bet pot if you're not sure where you stand in the hand, but mathematically it is increasingly correct to do so the lower the SPR is. Any mistake you make committing your stack postflop with be smaller with a low SPR than with a high SPR, because the risk/reward ratio is better. But the mathematical fact that 3-bet pots are (or should be) easier to play postflop in many situations does not automatically make them so if you play too many 3-bet pots with the wrong types of hands and/or out of position. But if you get involved with correct preflop ranges in 3-bet pots, and if you have position when you flat 3-bets, you will not set yourself up for big difficulties postflop. Our main topic for this article is how to adapt our preflop ranges to the situation, against players we have a good read on. In the series "Optimal 3/4/5-betting in NLHE 6-max" we learned a set of optimal strategies to use as defaults. These strategies were designed to make it impossible for our opponents to exploit us preflop by reraising us as a bluff with any two cards. The strategies are solid defaults to use against aggressive players or as a starting point against unknowns, but they are not necessarily the most profitable strategies. If we have a good read on the tendencies of an opponent, we can increase our profits by deviating from optimal play in order to exploit his mistakes. For example, against a player who 3-bets an extremely tight range of only {QQ+,AK}, we can increase our EV by folding a lot against his 3-bets and never 4-bet-bluff him. Against a player who flats a lot of 3-bets with marginal hands and then calls a lot postflop, we can increase our EV by 3betting more hands for value and avoid 3-bet bluffing. Most 3-bet pots that reach the flop have the 3-bettor out of position This is a consequence of the fact that the raiser will rarely flat a 3-bet out of position (if he knows what he's doing). For example, if we raise from UTG and get 3-bet, our standard defense strategy is to 4-bet (for value or as a bluff) or fold. But flatting 3-bets is a fine strategy in position, for example if we raise on the button and get 3-bet from the blinds. This forces the 3-bettor out of position to play postflop with many weak hands (keep in mind that an optimal 3-betting range consists of 60% bluffs). This will frequently put the 3-bettor in uncomfortable spots postflop, and sets him up for making expensive mistakes, even if he initially got involved with a good and correctly balanced 3-betting range. The planned structure for this article series is:

Part 1: 3-betting preflop, with focus on identifying situations where we can exploit our opponents by deviating from the optimal 3/4/5-bet strategies we have learned previously Part 2: Postflop play in 3-bet pots, with focus on playing in position after flatting a 3-bet preflop Part 3: Postflop play in 3-bet pots, with focus on playing out of position after 3-betting and getting called

So we begin by returning to preflop 3/4/5-bet strategies in Part 1. After summarizing the optimal strategies outlined in previous article series, we'll discuss profitable adjustments we can make to increase our EV against various player types with known leaks. In Part 2 and Part 3 we'll move on to postflop play in situations where one player has raised, another has 3-bet him from out of position, and then the raiser defends by flatting the 3-bet. We will limit our discussion to the scenario where the raiser is on the button and the 3-bettor is in the blinds. We will use principles for optimal postflop play discussed in the series "Optimal Postflop Play in NLHE 6max", and adapt the theory to 3-bet pots as needed. Before we begin adjusting our 3/4/5-bet preflop strategies to exploit players we have reads on, we briefly summarize the optimal strategies defined in the article series "Optimal 3/4/5-betting in NLHE 6-max":

2. Summary of optimal 3/4/5-betting

In the series "Optimal 3/4/5-betting in NLHE 6-max" we first defined a set of standard preflop opening ranges for every position. Then we used mathematics to build optimal 3-betting ranges against our own opening ranges, as well as defense strategies for the raiser to use against 3-betting.

2.1 Optimal 3/4/5-betting with the raiser out of position

We generalized the theory to a wide selection of opening ranges, and ended up with the following table for the scenario where the raiser is out of position:

Here is a link for downloading the table in document format (right click and choose "Save as"): IP_3bet_summary.doc The 3-bettor in position has 3 tools at his disposal: A value range (including 5-bet bluffs picked from "IP 5-bet air list") of hands that he 3-bets, planning to 5-bet all-in against a 4-bet

A 3-bet bluffing range with hands picked from "IP 3-bet air list". These are hands he 3-bets, planning to fold against a 4-bet. A flatting range ("IP flat list")

For example, against a 15% opening range, the 3-bettor in position uses the following optimal value and bluff ranges:
{value} + {3-bet bluff} = {KK+,7 air} + {30% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = {KK+,7 combos of Axs} + {30% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = {KK+,A5s,A4,A4,A4} + {30% of "IP 3-bet air list"}

The bluff range can either be chosen as best 30% of hands from "IP 3-bet air list", or we can use a randomizer (for example from Random.org) to 3-bet each hand in "IP 3-bet air list" 30% of the time. We elected to use the randomizer method in the articles. In addition to 3-betting, the 3-bettor flats the raise with a standard range of medium strong hands.
Flat = {"IP flat list"}

For simplicity we let the 3-bettor flat the same range against all the raiser's opening ranges. In reality he should flat somewhat tighter against a tight opening range, and he can flat a bit looser against a loose opening range. But designing the best possible flatting range is not the topic for this article series, and we'll only look at adjustments for our 3-betting strategy. The same table can also be used for the raiser when she defends out of position against a 3-bet. For example, of she has opened a 15% range from UTG, she will defend against 3-betting by 4-betting the following value range + 4-bet bluff range and fold everything else:
{value} + {4-bet bluff} = {QQ+,AK} + {AQ,AJs-ATs}

So the table above tells us how to 3-bet in position and how to defend against 3-bets as the raiser out of position. We have assumed that both players are outside of the blinds. When the raiser's opening range is known, the rest follows from mathematics, and we end up with an optimal 3/4/5-bet strategy pair. This pair is made up of one 3/5-bet strategy for the 3-bettor, and one 4-bet/fold strategy for the raiser. Both strategies are designed so that neither player can exploit the other by reraising as a bluff with any two cards anywhere. In practice we can use a HUD to estimate the raiser's opening range, and the we find the rest in the summary table. In Part 2 of "Optimal 3/4/5-bet strategies fro NLHE 6-max" we used the following HUD layout for HoldemManager (HEM):

This is a variation of a standard HUD layout downloaded from the HEM forums, as described here: NL6max Layout: Optimization. My modification of this HUD is to add a line of "Raise 1st" stats for all positions at the bottom. The configuration can be downloaded here (right-click and choose "Save as"): nlsixmax.xml. By reading the raiser's "Raise 1st" stats from the bottom line in the HUD, we can estimate her opening ranges for all positions. Then we go to the table of optimal strategy pairs an pick the closest optimal strategy pair. For example, against a 23% opening range, we use the strategy pair for a 25% opening range from the table. And when we are the raiser, we know (or should know) what our opening range is, so we go straight to the table and pick the corresponding closest optimal strategy pair. For example, if we raise a 17% range from MP and get 3-bet, we can defend using the strategy for a 15% opening range. If we have opened a 19% range, we defend with the strategy for a 20% opening range from the table, etc. In addition to the scenario with the raiser out of position and both players outside of the blinds, we defined a strategy pair for the blind vs blind scenario where small blind opens and big blind defends in position. The same principles apply, but the big blind has to make sure he 3-bets and flats enough over all to prevent small blind from profitably openraising any two cards. He has to flat a lot, so we built a separate "blind vs blind 3-bet air list" for this scenario. We will not look at the blind vs blind scenario in this article series, but those who want to repeat the strategies for this special case can read "Optimal 3/4/5-bet strategies for NLHE 6-max - Part 7".

2.1 Optimal 3/4/5-betting with the raiser in

position
After building optimal strategy pairs with the raiser out of position, we turned the situation around and placed the 3-better out of position. Our starting point was to build a strategy for the two players in the blinds to use against a button steal raise:

Download link (right-click and choose "Save as"): blind_defense_vs_button_summary.doc Against a button raise the two blind players 3-bet the entire value range, the entire "OOP 3-bet air list", and they flat all hands in "OOP flat list". This gives each of them a defense frequency of ~17%, which prevents button from profitably opening any two cards as a steal. (for more about the mathematics describing the situation, see "Optimal 3/4/5-betting in NLHE 6-max - Part 3"). Note that we don't use a list of 5-bet bluffing hands for this scenario. Instead we let the weakest value hands (TT/AQ) work as a hybrid between value 3-bets and 5-bet bluffs (they do well against the range that flats our 3-bet, but poorly against the range we get all-in against). Note that "OOP 3-bet air list" is stronger than the bluffing hands "IP 3-bet air list" we used when 3-betting in position. The reason for these adjustments is that when we 3-bet out of position, we will often get our 3-bet called. So we 3-bet for value with some hands (TT/AQ) that do well when called, but less well when we get 4-bet. However, when we do get 4-bet (which will happen much less often than getting called), we turn them into 5-bet bluffs. In addition, we want our 3-bet bluffs to be strong, since they

often will have to play postflop out of position. Our "OOP 3-bet air list" is therefore stronger than our "IP 3-bet air list" Our next step was to define a standard defense strategy for the button raiser to use against a 3-bet from the blinds. Button defends by 4-betting a value range, a bluff range, and does the rest of the defense by flatting. Here is one way to do it:
{value} + {bluff} + {flat} = {QQ+,AK} + {ATo,A9s-A7s} + {JJ-88,AQ-AJ,ATs,KQ-KJ,KTs,QJ,QTs,JTs}

In addition, we discussed how to adjust these defense ranges when the raiser is in UTG, MP or CO instead of the button. He will defend with a mix of value 4-betting, bluff 4-betting and flatting in these positions as well, but he will defend tighter than on the button (since the defense ranges follow from his opening ranges, which are now tighter). In this article series we will limit our scope to the button vs blinds scenario. Now that we have reviewed the optimal 3/4/5-betting strategies, we'll talk about how to adjust against players we have reads on. Optimal strategies prevent our opponents from exploiting us, and it's never bad to use them in an information vacuum. But optimal play is not the best strategy to use against players with big known leaks. Optimal play is built around the principle that we want to protect ourselves against aggressive opponents who might take shots at us by bluffing with any two cards. This means we will use some strategies will only cost us money against players that rarely bluff. For example, we always use a 4bet bluff range when we defend against a 3-bet using an optimal strategy. But if the 3-bettor is very tight and almost never 3-bet bluffs (for example, if he only 3-bets {QQ+,AK} for value), 4-bet bluffing is an unnecessary expense. Along the same lines we can drop 5-bet bluffing from our defense strategy against a player that rarely 4-bet bluffs. Note that when we drop some of the defensive components from an optimal 3/4/5-bet strategy we are creating openings that our opponents can exploit. For example, if we stop 4-bet bluffing against a particular opponent, it's implicit that we don't think he will notice or exploit it. If we are wrong, he might start attacking us with aggressive 3-bet-bluffing, which is now profitable for him with any two cards. However, we should be observant enough to notice what's happening, and we can then return to optimal play to protect ourselves. In this article we'll make exploitive adjustments against known player stereotypes. We'll first define some player categories, and then we design counter strategies that exploit their mistakes.

3. Adjustments from optimal play when we're 3-betting known player types

Well discuss adjustments against 3 opponent categories. We'll use categories defined by Bluefirepoker coach Alan Jackson in his excellent video "Alan's Common 3-betting Spots"", which I recommend checking out for those of you with a BluefirePoker subscription. The three categories are: 3-Bet Type 1: "Folder" (folds too often versus 3-bets preflop) 3-Bet Type 2: "Fit-or-fold Flatter" (flats many 3-bets preflop, but folds too much to c-bets on the flop) 3-Bet Type 3: "Sticky Flatter" (flats many 3-bets preflop, and folds little to flop c-bets)

To identify these player types at the table, we rely on our HUD. In all cases we're assuming the players have a narrow "4-bet range", for example 2.6% or lower. This means they mostly 4-bet only {QQ+,AK} = 2.6% for value, and rarely 4-bet bluff. Note that the HEM stats "4-bet%" and "4-bet range" are not the same. "4-bet%" tells us how large a fraction of the preflop opening range we 4-bet. For example, when we're playing optimally, we're 4betting 30% (the optimal percentage when we're never flatting) of our opening range against a 3-bet when we're out of position. If we have opened our 15% range from UTG, our 30% 4-betting range is {value} + {bluff} = {QQ+,AK} + {AQ,AJs-ATs} = 34 + 24 = 58 combos. This is 58/1326 = 4.4% of all hands, so our "4-bet range" in this situation is 4.4%. Since it's easy to visualize the hands a 4-betting range is made up of by looking at the "4-bet range" stat, we will use this stat only. A standard 4-betting core range used by most players in most positions is {QQ+,AK} = 34 combos (2.6%). So it makes sense to say that a 4-betting range of 2.6% or lower is tight, and we can assume such a player is rarely 4-bet bluffing. And when we rarely get 4-bet, we have room for 3-bet bluffing a lot, even if we get called a fair amount. Getting to see flops has value for us, also when we're 3-bet bluffing, since this gives us opportunities to steal the pot on the flop, or hit the flop and win the pot that way. This is a nice bonus for us when we're bluffing and Villain doesn't fold, and it's much, much better than getting 4-bet and having to fold.

3.1 3-Bet Type 1: Folder

We remember from "Optimal 3/4/5-bet strategies in NLHE 6-max" that if you openraise and get 3-bet, you have to be willing to defend at least 30% of the time (and a bit more if you defend partly by flatting) to prevent the 3-bettor from 3-bet bluffing any two cards profitably against you. So you can't fold more than 100 - 30 = 70%. The Folder is not willing to defend enough, and we can exploit him by 3-bet bluffing more than the optimal amount.

The Folder-stat we want to see is a low "Fold to 3-bet" (we would very much like to see this stat > 70%), for example:
- Fold to 3-bet > 60%

Technically Villain has to fold at least 70% to give us the opportunity to 3-bet any two cards with a profit, but in practice we can make do if he folds at least 60%. Keep in mind that since he 4-bets a tight range, he will often defend by flatting. And when he flats, he is giving is opportunities to either steal the pot postflop, or make a hand and win a showdown. So if we observe a raiser with a "Fold to 3-bet" > 60% and a low "4-bet range", we can classify him as a "Folder" and start attacking him. But note that a player isn't necessarily a Folder just because he plays tight preflop. It's perfectly possible to have a low VP$IP like 18% and defend very aggressively against 3-bets, since tight opening ranges are easy to defend. For example, it's impossible to 3-bet bluff any two cards profitably against a nit who opens 8% (around 106 combos) from UTG, if he 4-bets {QQ+,AK} = 34 combos for value. Because then he is 4-betting 34/106 = 32% of his range, and defends a bit more than optimally. So we will lose money by trying to exploit him with looser-than-optimal 3-bet bluffing. The player is a preflop nit, but he does not defend nitty against 3-bets after opening UTG, even if this is only so by accident (his standard {QQ+,AK} 4-betting range simply happens to be wide enough after he has raised his 8% range from UTG). So what we are looking for isn't players who play tight preflop, but players who fold too much against 3-bets, regardless of the preflop ranges they are using, and we use the stat "Fold to 3-bet" to identify them. We will find some candidates among the tight players for sure, but we might also find candidates among players who play on the loose side preflop. Some players like to splash around a bit preflop in order to get involved with weak players and outplay them postflop. This is fine, but if they are unwilling to defend their preflop opening ranges correctly, they are opening themselves up for getting exploited by aggressive opponents (like us), who see what they are doing. For example, a good player might decide to open ~50% of his hands on the button button as a default, since he assumes this is profitable on average (and he is probably right), but he does not bother to defend the optimal amount against a 3-bet, since he assumes his opponents aren't 3-bet bluffing a lot on average (and he is probably right again). But if the 3-bettor is an observant player like us, he might be getting exploited if he keeps opening his 50% range without being willing to defend it optimally versus 3-bets from the blind (and we have seen in previous articles that optimal button defense against 3-bets from the blinds is very loose). At any rate, once we have classified a player as a "Folder" in 3-bet pots, we have to think about how to adjust our 3/4/5-betting strategy against him. It's obvious that we can profit from widening our 3bet bluffing range against a Folder, but does this mean we should start 3-bet bluffing any two cards? We could, since it should be profitable in a vacuum, but in practice it's not a good idea since we risk two things:

- The other players begin 4-betting us a lot - The Folder adjusts against us So lets' try the following adjustments: Adjustments in 3-bet strategy against "3-Bet Type 1: Folder" Use the optimal value range for the situation Drop all 5-bet bluffing with the Axs hands from "IP 5-bet air list". Instead, 3-bet all A5s-A2s as a bluff and fold them to a 4-bet 3-bet 100% of "IP 3-bet air list" in position, and "OOP 3-bet air list" out of position

Beyond this, we flat the hands in "IP flat list" and "OOP flat list" as before. Example of 3-betting a Folder Let's say a known Folder has opened from CO. His HUD looks like this:

He openraises 25% in CO (the 3rd number in the stat line "Raise 1st" at the bottom of the HUD) with "Fold to 3-bet" = 74%, and he's a clear candidate for the "Folder" category. We want to exploit his tendencies by 3-bet bluffing him a lot. For completeness, we check how often he 4-bets and flats after a 3-bet. We find this from the HUD pop-up (hold the pointer over the 3-bet stats in the HUD, and the pop-up appears):

He has a "4-bet range" = 1.5%, so he will 4-bet tight and probably not bluff much. We also see that his "4-bet%" =10%, which tells us that his response to a 3-bet is: - Folds 74% - Calls 16% - 4-bets 10% (with a 1.5% range)

This is very good for us, since we will see many flops with our 3-bet bluffing hands those times he doesn't fold. So in addition to have an automatically profitable 3-bet bluff preflop (since he folds > 70%) we will get additional stealing opportunities postflop those times he flats our 3-bet. We will probably pick up a lot of pots with a c-bet on the flop, and those times he doesn't fold, we will sometimes have flopped a hand and win a showdown. Our optimal 3/4/5-bet strategy against his 25% openraise, found in the table of optimal strategy pairs earlier in the article, is:
{value} + {bluff} = {QQ+,AK,12 air} + {70% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = {QQ+,AK,A5s-A3s} + {70% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = 46 combos + 70 combos = 116 combos (8.7%)

We end up with an optimal 3-betting range of 8.7% against him. But we can do better by incorporating the adjustments discussed above. This results in the following exploitive strategy:
{value} + {bluff} = {QQ+,AK} + {A5s-A2s, 100% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = 34 combos + {16 combos + 100 combos} = 150 combos (11.3%)

Our adjustments increases the 3-bet% for the situation from 8.7% to 11.3%. And nothing stops us from adding more 3-bet bluffs if our opponent (or the other players at the table) does nothing to adjust against our exploitive strategy. Our optimal response against a relatively tight 25% CO opening range is to 3-bet relatively tightly. But if the raiser both opens a tight range, and then refuses to defend it correctly, he has created a "hole" in his openraising strategy. We can attack through this hole by increasing our 3-bet bluffing frequency beyond the optimal amount. Since he rarely 4-bet bluffs, we can also drop all 5-bet bluffing. The adjustments suggested above is only one of many ways to do it. The advantage of adjusting in this systematic manner is: We adjust using strategies we already know as our starting point. We move the 5-bet bluffs over to the 3-bluffing range, we increase the percentage of 3-bet bluffing with our air lists to 100%, and the rest remains the same. This makes our adjustments logical, easy to understand, and easy to remember. Our 3-bet bluffing is still random (since our bluffing hands are randomly dealt to us) We're not 3-betting so often that it's obvious what we're doing

In theory we would maximize our expectation by 3-bet bluffing this player 100% of the time, at every

possible opportunity. But it's probably better for us to not go there right away, since that might change the way our target and our other opponents play. A good plan is to start with a moderately exploitive strategy like the one we have outlined above. If you're getting away with it, you can add more bluffs and exploit your target harder. Then you can pick your additional bluffing hands from the best hands not on the air lists, say A8o, KTo, K5s, and so on. When we're playing against a Folder, position doesn't matter a lot. His mistake is to fold too much, which means attacking him does not set us up for a lot of postflop play. And when we don't have to play postflop, position doesn't matter. So we can make the adjustments outlined above both in and out of position versus this player. In fact, since a 3-bet from the blinds out of position against a tight player appears to be a very strong move, he might fold even more when you 3-bet him from out of position. In summary, our exploitive adjustment against a Folder is about exploiting a big hole in his strategy and bring him out of his comfort zone. The latter is an important part of it, since many Folders are simply not willing to play back at you, even if they know what you are doing. If he doesn't adjust by defending more against your 3-bets, or if he starts tightening up his opening ranges, it's money in your pocket. If he keeps raise-folding with the same ranges, you print money by continuing to 3-bet bluff him more than optimally. If he adjusts by openraising less, you profit from getting more profitable opportunities to openraise yourself (it will get folded to you more often).

3.2 3-Bet Type 2: Fit-or-fold Flatter

This player type flats a lot of 3-bets with medium/weak hands like 66/A6s/KTo, etc. Flatting a lot of 3-bets isn't necessarily a bad strategy (if you do it in position), but you need to follow through by also continuing against a c-bet on lots of flops. Otherwise you're just burning money. For example, calling a 12 bb 3-bet planning to fold on the flop unless you flop top pair or a good draw will not be profitable. The Fit-or-Fold Flatter does a lot of this, for example by calling 3-bets with low pocket pairs, hoping to flop a set. Set mining in 3-bet pots with 100 bb stacks is not profitable against a good player who 3-bets a polarized range of nuts/air type hands. Most of the time you won't flop a set, and when you do, your opponent will often refuse to pay you off. The stats we are looking for to identify this player type are a low "4-bet range" and a high "Fold to cbet in 3-bet pots". You find the latter stat by moving your mouse pointer over the "C-Bet" section at the beginning of line 2 in the HUD. A pop-up with c-bet stats will then appear. Since we tend to use small c-bets of a little more than 1/2 pot in 3-bet pots (more about this in future articles about postflop play in 3-bet pots), you have to defend a lot on the flop to prevent the 3-bettor from c-betting any two cards profitably. For example, a c-bet of 0.5 x pot means that the 3-bettor is giving himself pot-odds 1 : 0.5 = 2 : 1 on a flop c-bet bluff. So he can c-bet any two cards profitably if he succeeds more than 1/(2 + 1) = 33%. If we flat his 3-bet preflop and then fold more than 100 - 33 = 67% to the c-bet, he can print money by c-betting his entire range profitably on the flop. If he c-bets 0.6 x pot, the same reasoning tells us that

we have to defend at least 62% of the time. Let's define the following criteria for a "Fit-or-Fold Flatter":
- Calls a lot of 3-bets preflop - Fold to c-bet in 3-bet pots > 40%

Calling lots of 3-bets preflop is a consequence of: 1) Rarely folding to 3-bets 2) Rarely 4-betting So a player who defends in a loose-passive manner against 3-bets will be a candidate for the "Fit-orFold Flatter" category. When we spot one of these players, we check his "Fold to c-bet in 3-bet pots" stat to see if he gives up too easily postflop. Using a 40% threshold for this stat gives us a bit of margin when we c-bet between 0.50 and 0.60 times the pot. Let's say that Villain raises 3.5 bb from CO, we 3-bet to 12 bb from the button, the blinds fold and he calls out of position. He checks and we c-bet bluff 14 bb (0.55 x pot) with some worthless hand. If he folds 40%, and we always lose when he doesn't fold, our EV for c-bet bluffing with air becomes:
EV (c-bet) = 0.40 (25.5 bb) + 0.60 (-14 bb) = 10.20 bb - 8.4 bb = +1.8 bb

In addition, we will sometimes win the pot when he doesn't fold. If he calls, we can draw out on later streets, or we can bluff him out by bluffing again. But be cautious when you fire 2 and 3 barrels as a bluff against a Fit-or-Fold Flatter, since he will usually have something decent when he calls the flop. We also have to consider the flop texture before we c-bet bluff, even if our opponents folds way too much. Some flop textures hit his 3-bet flatting range harder than others, so we should not c-bet blindly as a bluff on every flop. But what we know about this player type is that when the flop is not favorable for him, we have a very good +EV situation with an any-two-cards c-bet bluff in a 3-bet pot. So what is a reasonable adjustment away from optimal play against a player type that flats many 3bets preflop and then folds too much on the flop? Since he per assumption doesn't 4-bet much, we begin by dropping all 5-bet bluffing from our strategy. Furthermore, since he flats a lot preflop, we can profit from moving some of our best preflop flatting hands (for example, AQ and JJ) up to the 3betting range. The logic behind this is that they should extract plenty of value from the hands that call our 3-bet, and by 3-betting them instead of flatting them we get to isolate a weak player and play him heads-up postflop. For example, we never 3-bet AQ as a part of an optimal 3/4/5-betting strategy against a raiser out of

position (although we do 3-bet it for value from the blinds against a button raise). Instead we flat the raise preflop and play the hand postflop. But against a raiser tho will call 3-bets with hands like AT and QJ, our AQ will extract value from the hands that flats our 3-bet, even if we are a big underdog when we get 4-bet (but that rarely happens). Therefore, let's define a range of hands we call "semi value". These are hands we 3-bet for value against the hands that call our 3-bet, but when a 4-bet comes, we assume we are crushed so we fold. Note that when this happens, we have 3-bet-folded a hand we could have played profitably by only flatting the initial raise. On the other hand, the value we lose when this happens is compensated by the value we extract from isolating a weak player who will call with many hands our semi value hands dominate. Below is a suggestion for exploitive 3/4/5-betting adjustments to use against a Fit-or-Fold Flatter, using our optimal 3/4/5-betting strategies as a starting point. Adjustments in 3-bet strategy against "3-Bet Type 2: Fit-or-fold Flatter" Use the optimal value range for the situation, but always include QQ and AK (remember that QQ/AK are sometimes flatted when we play optimally against a tight opening range) Drop all 5-bet bluffing with Axs hands, and don't 3-bet bluff them either Use the optimal 3-bet bluffing range for the situation Move the flatting hands {JJ-TT,AQ,AJs,KQ} out of the flatting range and into a "semi value" range that we 3-bet for value against the hands that call us, planning to fold to a 4-bet

Beyond these adjustments, flat all other hands in "IP flat list" and "OOP flat list" as before. Note that we make the same adjustments both in and out of position. Position matters a bit more against a "Fit-or-Fold Flatter" than against a "Folder", since we now have to play more hands postflop. But often he will fold on the flop anyway, which reduces his positional advantage. Also, the extra hands we are 3-betting have good equity against the hands he calls with, which makes it easier for us to play out of position when that happens. Example of 3-betting a Fit-or-Fold Flatter Let's say a known "Fit-or-fold Flatter" has opened from CO. His HUD looks like this:

Note that this player isn't a loose-passive fish, but a tight-aggressive player at the very tight part of the spectrum (17% VP$IP). He opens a 19% range from CO and he folds only 45% to a 3-bet. Exploiting him by 3-bet bluffing any two cards will definitely not be profitable in a vacuum. Next we check the

pop-up for his 3-bet stats:

He has a "4-bet range" = 1.1%, with"4-bet%" = 10%. Together with his "Fold to 3-bet" of 45% this tells us that his response to a 3-bet is to - Fold 45% - Call 45% - 4-bet 10% (and then with a very tight 1.1% 4-bet range) This is promising, since he flats a lot, but 4-bets very little. If he also plays tight on the flop, we have a "Fit-or-Fold Flatter on our hands". We check the pop-up for his c-betting stats:

Bingo! He folds 57% to flop c-bets in 3-bet pots (the 2nd number from the left on line 3), and he is definitely a "Fit-or-Fold Flatter". He flats a 3-bet 45% of the time, and then he folds more than half the time on the flop. This is spewy of him, and easy for us to exploit by c-betting a lot after our 3-bet gets called. Our optimal 3/4/5-bet-strategy against his 19% openrange, taken from the summary of optimal strategy pairs listed previously, is as follows:
{value} + {bluff} = {QQ+,10 air} + {40% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = {QQ+,A5s,A4s,A3,A3} + {40% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = 28 combos + 40 combos = 68 combos (5.1%)

With the adjustments outlined above, we get:

{value} + {semi-value} + {bluff} = {QQ+,AK} + {JJ-TT,AQ,AJs,KQ} + {40% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = 34 combos + 48 combos + 40 combos = 122 combos (9.2%)

We end up 3-betting almost twice the optimal percentage (5.1% --> 9.2%), even if he calls a lot preflop. We have reduced our bluffing somewhat by eliminating all 5-bet bluffing. Then we have built a range of good medium strong hands ("semi value") that we 3-bet for value against the hands that call us, but we fold these hands against Villain's extremely tight 4-bet range. If a Fit-or-Fold Flatter is very loose preflop and flats an extreme amount of 3-bets, we might want to reduce our bluffing a bit more. For example, we could use the strategy above, but reduce the percentage we 3-bet bluff our air list hands to half (40% --> 20% in this case). But if he flats an extremely wide range we should also be able to move some additional flatting hands up to the semi value range as well, say 99, AJo and ATs. By knowing our optimal strategy cold, such on-the-fly refinements are easy to implement at the table.

3.3 3-Bet Type 3: Sticky Flatter

The calling station twin of the "Fit-or-Fold Flatter". This player type also flats lots of 3-bets preflop, and he is also a calling station postflop. We will often find ourselves in a scenario where we 3-bet him preflop and get called, then we c-bet the flop and get called again. As for the two other player types, we're assuming he 4-bets a tight range 2.6% or lower. Let's define a simple criterion for a "Sticky Flatter", once we have established that he calls lots of 3bets preflop:
- Fold to c-bet in 3-bet pots < 40%

We remember that this is the threshold we used for a "Fit-or-Fold Flatter" (who had Fold to c-bet in 3-bet pots > 40%), and that the threshold for profitable any-two-cards c-bet bluffing was 33% for a 0.50 x pot bet and 38% for a 0.60 x pot bet. So it's reasonable to use 40% as the line that divides those who fold too much on the flop from who stick around more than we like. "The Fit-or-fold Flatter" folds more than 40%, and the Sticky Flatter folds less than 40%. It's obvious that our exploitive strategy against a "Sticky Flatter" should use less than optimal 3-bet bluffing, and we should also be very selective about which flop textures we c-bet- Players who call a lot preflop and postflop defend well against bluffing, so we can't attack them that way. We need to adjust our strategy away from stealing pots and move towards more value betting when we have a hand.

A reasonable adjustment is to drop all 3-bet bluffing and 5-bet bluffing, and then add a "semi value" range of the best medium strong hands in our optimal flatting range (JJ, AQ and the like). These are hands that do very well against the hands a "Sticky Flatter" will call our 3-bet with. A 3-bet with these semi value hands isolate our weak opponent and sets us up for playing postflop heads-up and with good equity against him. On the rare occasions we get 4-bet, we of course fold the semi value hands, since they are crushed by his tight 4-bet range.

Adjustments in 3-bet strategy against "3-Bet Type 1: Sticky Flatter" Use the optimal value range for the situation, but always include QQ and AK (remember that QQ/AK are sometimes flatted when we play optimally against a tight opening range) Drop all 5-bet bluffing with Axs hands, and don't 3-bet bluff them either Drop all 3-bet bluffing Move the flatting hands {JJ-99,AQ-AJ,KQ}} out of the flatting range and into a "semi value" range that we 3-bet for value against the hands that call us, planning to fold to a 4-bet

Beyond this we flat the remaining hands in "IP flat list" and "OOP flat list" that we normally would flat in an optimal strategy. Postflop we will c-bet tighter than usual, since we expect to get called often. Position is more important against a "Sticky Flatter" than against the "Folder" and the "Fit-or-Fold Flatter", since we now have to play postflop a lot, and often continue past the flop. However, our adjustment sets us up for postflop play with a strong range of value and semi value hands, which reduces Villain's positional advantage those times we have 3-bet him from out of position. A strong range is easy to play play postflop, especially when we know our opponent's range is weak and dominated by our range. Example of 3-betting a Sticky Flatter Let's say a known "Sticky Flatter" has opened from CO. His HUD is:

He opens 11% from CO, and only folds 8% (!) to 3-bets. Exploiting him preflop by 3-bet bluffing a lot is clearly not going to work, and we have to look for other ways to exploit him. We check the popup for his 3-bet stats:

He has "4-bet range" = 0.2%, and "4-bet%" = 3%. Together with his "Fold to 3-bet" of 8% this tells us that his defense against 3-bets consists of: - Folding 8% - Calling 89% - 4-betting 3% (and then with an extremely tight 0.2% 4-bet range, probably only AA) These are extremely loose-passive stats. It appears he refuses to fold against 3-bets, and that he wants to see a flop with every hand he has openraised and then take his chances postflop. Note that this is not quite as bad as it might seem, since his PFR% is only 7%. This means the range he raises and calls 3-bets with is relatively strong. However, if he is also the player type that limps strong hands for deception, his raising range will be weaker. Then we check the pop-up for his c-bet stats:

He only folds 31% to flop c-bets in 3-bet pots, and is definitely a "Sticky Flatter". We have to be patient postflop against this player and mostly wait for hands we can bet for value. And we should be willing to value bet somewhat weaker hands than usual, since he will call a lot. Of course, we can also c-bet bluff a bit on dry flop textures, but we need to be picky. Our optimal 3/4/5-bet strategy against this player, taken from the table of optimal 3/4/5-bet strategy pair earlier in the article is:
{value} + {bluff} = {KK+,7 air} + {30% of "IP 3-bet air list"} = {KK+,A5s,A4,A4,A4} + {30% of "IP 3-bet air list"}

= 19 combos + 30 combos = 49 combos (3.7%)

Note that we have used the optimal strategy against a 15% open range. Villain actually opens 11%, but we havent built a default optimal strategy to use against such a tight range, so we use the closest strategy (15%). Before we move on, let's reflect over our default optimal strategy and discuss why an adjusted exploitive strategy will perform much better against a "Sticky Flatter" (it's against this player type that we make the biggest adjustments away from optimal play). Our optimal strategy assumes that Villain will mostly 4-bet or fold to our 3-bet, since he is out of position. And he will 4-bet about 30% of his raising range. Since Villain here opens 11%, his optimal 4-bet range has to be very tight (30% of 11% is only 3.3%). Our optimal response is to 3-bet a squeaky tight {KK+} value range, balanced with the optimal amount of bluffs. And then we flat QQ, AK, and the other hands in "IP flat list". It is correct that a "Sticky Flatter" will 4-bet a tight range (we check for this at the beginning of the hand), but in addition he will call our 3-bet with a very wide range. We can therefore extract lots of value by 3-betting him with hands that can't necessarily continue against a 4-bet. We call these hands our "semi value" range. We also drop all 3-bet bluffing and 5-bet bluffing, since this does not work well against a player who calls lots of 3-bets and then calls lots of c-bets. Our exploitive strategy, according to the adjustments discussed above, is:
{value} + {semi-value} = {QQ+,AK} + {JJ-99,AQ-AJ,KQ} = 34 combos + 66 combos = 100 combos (7.5%)

We end up 3-betting about twice the optimal amount, just like we did against the "Fit-or-fold Flatter" earlier in the article. We use a wide range of "semi value" hands that extract value from the wide range a "Sticky Flatter" will call 3-bets with. Much of the value we get from 3-betting and getting calls, comes from hitting the flop and winning a showdown. We should not c-bet bluff a lot of "air" on the flop against a "Sticky Flatter", since we're then simply building large pots that we will often lose. But if we know that a particular "Sticky Flatter" calls a lot on the flop, but then folds easily on the turn, we can exploit that by c-bet buffing more with the plan of 2-barreling lots of turns. To pull this off you need to be skilled in reading hand ranges and flop textures, and we will not discuss this further here.

4. Summary
We began the article series "More About 3-Bet Pots in NLHE 6-max" with a summary of optimal 3/4/5-betting strategies from previous article series. Then we discussed how we can deviate from

optimal 3/4/5-betting in order to increase our profits against weak opponents with easily exploitable leaks. Our method for doing this was: - Define player categories based on general tendencies - Choose some obvious adjustments away from optimal play - But still use optimal strategy as our starting point We defined three player types: - 3-Bet Type 1: Folder (folds too much to 3-bets) - 3-Bet Type 2: Fit-or-fold Flatter (calls lots of 3-bets, but folds to much on the flop - 3-Bet Type 3: Sticky Flatter (calls lots of 3-bets and also calls a lot on the flop) I recommend that you place weak players into these categories (but don't try to hard to make them fit, if they don't). It's much easier to adjust according to a label like "Sticky Flatter" than having to dig around in individual stats each time you clash with someone in a 3-bet pot. So put a label on your opponents (if they fit one of the categories) the first time you play a 3-bet pot with them, and then use that label later. For example, once you have labeled someone as a "Folder" after you have played a pot with him and looked over his 3-bet stats in the process, forget about his 3-bet stats from that point on, and keep treating him like a "Folder". Don't adjust until he gives you a reason to. When his general tendencies in 3-bet pots are neatly summarized in a label, you save time in future pots against him (no need to look at his stats every time you play a pot). When you see a candidate for one of these categories, make a quick note (for example, "3-bet Type: Sticky Flatter"), and then you implement the adjustments outlined in this article. As you gather more reads, you can fine-tune your adjustments. For example, you might want to c-bet bluff a bit (planning to 2-barrel many turns) against a "Sticky Flatter" who folds too much on the turn after calling the flop. In the next article we'll look at some exploitive adjustments we can do in our preflop ranges when we are the raiser and we get 3-bet. Then we'll look at postflop play in 3-bet pots, after we have defended against a 3-bet by flatting in position..