OK so I wanted to look at some tendencies for a reggy player at my stakes, and see what I could generalise from patterns I'd identify from hands in my DB.

Our subject is 20/16 with a 7% 3bet and is positionally aware.

Here villain is in the SB, he sees the flop against the CO only:

SB: $26.03 (104.1 bb)
CO: $13.88 (55.5 bb)

CO raises to $0.50, SB raises to $1.87, CO calls $1.37

He makes this quite big, I would speculate because he's isolating a minraise - I also change my sizing here, I'm not expecting the kind of player he's isolating to notice, but it's something _I_ could notice to exploit his isolations.

Flop: ($3.99) T 3 K (2 players)
SB bets $1.71, CO calls $1.71

He makes a small cbet, especially following the really big preflop sizing. Perhaps he'd make this bigger if it was for value - I don't know, but again I'm going to guesstimate that his reasoning here might be that, again the kind of player he is trying to isolate, he is up against an inelastic range - they will call or fold much the same range vs. different sizings, therefore he may be betting smaller with bluffs and semibluffs and bigger for value.

Turn: ($7.41) 2 (2 players)
SB checks, CO checks

River: ($7.41) Q (2 players)
SB bets $3.18, CO raises to $10.30 and is all-in, SB calls $7.12

Results: $28.01 pot ($1.25 rake)
Final Board: T 3 K 2 Q
SB showed A J and won $13.38 (-$0.50 net)
CO showed A J and won $13.38 (-$0.50 net)

Considering what was shown down here, I like his river sizing - he will get value here from hands that couldn't call a bigger bet, say QJ, weak Kx etc. and he gives hands like QT a chance to raise and value town themselves. There's not much the CO can check back the turn with that's able to call a bigger river bet. Perhaps this speculation kind of goes against my earlier idea of him thinking the CO has an inelastic range, but while I think that applies to the flop, I don't think it's so much the case on the river.

In the next hand, villain is again in the SB, this time going to the flop with the BTN:

SB: $12.50 (50 bb)
BTN: $25 (100 bb)

BTN raises to $0.75, SB raises to $2.15, BB folds, BTN calls $1.40

Flop: ($4.55) K Q 3 (2 players)
SB bets $2.25, BTN calls $2.25

Turn: ($9.05) 4 (2 players)
SB checks, BTN checks

River: ($9.05) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, BTN checks

Results: $9.05 pot ($0.41 rake)
Final Board: K Q 3 4 8
SB showed K T and won $8.64 ($4.24 net)
BTN mucked A T and lost (-$4.40 net)

Here he 3bets a pretty weak hand from the SB, this is a pointer for me to look at his overall 3bet %age from the SB, which turns out to be 6% - it may be he's 3betting from the SB much wider than this given the hands I've seen shown down here, and that my sample size on him isn't big enough for the stats to have converged yet. It also may be that there's a wide positional variation and that he's 3betting from the SB much wider against late position opens, that seems more likely. Given that tendency, if I'm opening from later positions against this kind of player, and I get 3bet from the SB holding a premium hand, it seems sensible to flat more often than 4bet to keep the weaker parts of his 3betting range in. It also seems sensible to 4bet bluff more often, particularly when I hold blockers to the stronger parts of his 3bet range.