3-betting a polarized range vs 3-betting light?

Question

Lets say you are in a heads up game. Game is 1/2. Your oppenent opens very light, but doesnt call 3-bets as much. He raises to 7.

Should your 3-bet range be more inclined to a polarized range (monster hands (AQ+, TT+), and weak hands (43s, T9o, 22, etc.) that dont have much reverse implied odds)?

Or should your range be monsters, weak hands, AND finally the okay-decent hands (ex: ATo, KJo, AJo) with huge reverse implied odds (you either get called by a weaker hand that is a 40% underdog, or a better hand that is a 80%+ favorite) with almost no implied odds, but very hard to play OOP without being the agressor?

Answer 1

i think in a heads-up cash game you can't play winning poker without 3-betting a wide range of hands, because by 3-betting with only really strong hands and trash hands, you make your hand more predictable and make it more difficult to get action for the good hands, unless you happen to show a trash hand, where the strategy's effectiveness will increase as long as you tone down on the steals...by 3-betting a wide range, you will get more consistent action on your big hands because you will be 3-betting more often, and you can effectively be the aggressor more often not only because you will be 3-betting more often but also because more boards hit your range of hands, in your opponent's mind...the only caveat i would add here is that if you do follow this approach that i recommend, you need to be 3-betting as a straight steal a lot less than if you play the first way