Sorry to drop in with one of your quotes from the second page. It seems to contradict the way i have been thinking up till now although it may depend on the specific situation. Maybe you can clear things up for me and help me seeing things correctly ?
Quote:
If ranges are asymmetrical (as they will be when one player 4-bets and the other calls), it's very common for the better range (the 4-betting range) to be able to profitably bet any two cards. So you should not try to defend aggressively enough to prevent the 4-bettor from being able to profitably defend any two cards, but that isn't problematic since he had to pay a lot of money (by 4-betting) to maybe get into a profitable post-flop spot (he'll sometimes face a 5-bet pre-flop and have to fold his weaker holdings without ever get the opportunity to bluff post-flop).
So you consider the 4 bettor the one who payed (more than us) to be in this flop situation.
I always thought of it the other way around as the preflop (re)raiser had preflop fold equity and this providing a discount on the hands he plays.
For example, in my mind, this discount justified 3betting in the blinds with hands that are likely dominated by the LP raisers calling range. We 3bet for example QJs/QTs in the blinds. When we are being called, we are OOP and risk domination. However, if he folded to our 3bets 50%, i viewed the money i make there as a discount on the hands i play in this disadvantageous situation.
Now this is a different situation than the one i quoted from you. Maybe the difference is that in my scenario our 3bet is very likely to be called rather than reraised while in your scenario, the 4bettor is more likely to be reraised instead of called. Is that the main difference, or am i looking at things the wrong way even in a scenario where reraises are less likely ?