Question about defending against 3bets. On page 69 he says if we defend against 3bets by 4betting we need to defend at least 14.4% of all hands.

Then he figures that we can also call 3bets (instead of only 4betting). These hands will be added to this 14.4% defending range. On page 71 he writes we now defend up to 40% of hands ( thats including the 14.4% 4bets). I was wondering why the 3bets call defends have to be added to the 14.4%.

On page 69 he also writes: if we also defend by 3bet calling then we should figure out which hand to add to this 14.4% range. My first reaction was that if we are already 4betting 14.4% our opponent can no longer 3bet any two cards ( which was the idea). So if we are adding 3bet call hands we could remove 4bet hands.

Does this makes sense to anyone?

Let me see if i got it right...The % depends on the sizing used by the players betting, if i recall from Janda´s book he offers an example and based on that example he determine the optimall defend %.
Now, a linear approach to "defending" this time vs a 3bet can either be byjust calling or by just 4betting but when you take a "balanced" approach you need to add all the posible options on your arsenal to exploit villains 3bet tendencies meaning it can be by either calling or 4betting so if the situation at hand determines we need to defend 14.4% of the time we need to construct a balanced 14.4% range to defend against villains 3bet range, this Defend vs 3bet range has to contain a calling, 4bet for value and 4bet as a bluff and it all depends on villains 3bet range but ultimally our range should be defending against his 3bet 14.4% of the time to avoid getting exploted...Hope this helps :P

PD1: And this is just based only on mathematical facts about players betting size and doesnt take into account postflop play which obviously is a big factor to consider too.

PD2: Donkr has free for download great stuff about playing 3bet/4bet/5bet pots optimally, u should look for it on google.