I have a discussion with BigFiszh about a theory question. Of course he knows alot more about GT than me since I am just starting out to learn about these stuff but I believe I am correct here.

Here is my claim:

If you three bet bluff me pre flop and I only call you will come to a good bluffingspot post flop. I claim that I do not have to defend flop as wide in this situation as I should do in a raised pot. Reason for it is because when you bluffed with your three bet you risked money to get to this good bluffing spot since you risked facing a fourbet with your bluffs. Another factor that let´s us to defend less than minimum is because the three bet bluffer has a weak range and the expectation of his hand is negative.

This is BigFiszh: argument:

"say you fold the "optimal" frequency to my 3bets, which means, my 3bet-bluffs are break-even. Why do you think you can afford to defend less than the minimum against my cbet?! I´m printing money with my cbets - and in fact I didn´t even "risk money" to get into this bluffing-spot, because my 3bet was already break-even, so on the flop the clocks are reset to zero - and I have a "new" bluffing spot that gets profitable if you fold too much."

I would appreciate to hear what you guys have to say.