[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
He's getting 4.5-1 on the flop, so he will continue to bet many flops, since he only has to win 25% of the time. The times that you check-fold to him (including you folding the best hand), plus the times when he flops something good, and he's getting the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You said this right after spending two paragraphs pointing out that he could counter my strategy by frequently checking the flop through. Do you realize you've refuted yourself?

Giving free cards headsup on the flop with busted hands is terrible stealing strategy and you've done an excellent job of explaining why. I get just as many T9o, J7s, and K5s hands in the BB as the next guy. If he's going to start raining free cards on those blind defenses then I'll accept making a little less on my infrequent good hands.

If he steals with 72o, gets headsup with the BB, and flops K85r versus my AA, then he just lost 3 SB for his poor timing. There is no acceptable way for him to avoid this. He can't fold to a preflop 3-bet because he has pot odds to see the flop. He can't not bet the flop if I just call because he has ample pot odds to autobluff his bust. In each case the "cure" to losing 3 SB on this particular hand is worse than the disease. If he still insists on not betting the flop then that's just extra EV for me.

[ QUOTE ]
HPFAP says if you never play another hand again in your life, you should 3-bet less, for deception. It then goes on to say you should 3-bet more liberally, because you don't want your opponent to think, "I'm betting 2 SB to win 1.5 SB", but rather he needs to know that sometimes it will cost him more.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's important to realize that this is a psychological argument. If Villain actually understands what is happening then he will realize that the cost is the same either way and it shouldn't matter to him or affect his steal frequency.

But the preflop 3-bet is more vivid and thus has a greater deterrent effect on many players. Now I could argue that I don't really care whether my opponent is deterred or not. After all there is a proper amount that Villain should be stealing and if he exceeds that then he will lose money. I don't care if he insists on playing badly and losing his money.

However there are two rightful objections to this argument:

1. Some players don't steal enough and can be bullied into stealing even less. That is an accomplishment of aggressive 3-betting.

2. The money Villain loses by stealing with junk goes in part to the SB and any players sitting behind Villain. It's not a zero-sum battle between myself and the thief. He loses money when the SB has a good hand and clobbers him. I lose money when he drives off my trash hand instead of giving me a free ride. So his excessive steals are -EV for him but they also have the side effect of redistributing my money to the SB. Thus it can be to my advantage to intimidate him into improving his play by stealing less.

This emphasizes the importance of being able to play different ways at different times and against different people.