Hey guys, 

First post here, just recently joined.  I was considering the theory behind 3betting with blockers ie low suited kings/aces.  If my understanding is right the general concept behind this is that by having a A or K we eliminate a large portion of the combos the opener can 4bet raise with (assuming a tight 4betting range of JJ+, AQs, AKo).  This should in turn improve our chances of getting a successful fold by reducing the chance he has a 4betting range.

However isn't it only a theoretical advantage (depending on position and what card the king was dealt).  Assume we are on the BTN with 8Kd.

UTG opens 3BB

Hero raises to 9BB (we have the Kd blocker).

now if my math is right  without the blocker he has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKo and AQs.  That is 44 combos.  If we remove the Kd he now only has 37 combos.  This therefore reduces his 4bet potential by 16%?  

But...

If we get dealt the Kd as our 2nd card, whilst we eliminate combos we did not reduce the odds of him being dealt AK or KK?  Therefore the chances we get 4bet should remain the same?

Not sure if that makes sense at all....  Or potentially we 3bet with blockers for a different reason XD