I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that in this specific spot it seems like a click more than a logical play for hero. I mean I could get into why I think flatting is better here, but first you tell me why you think 3b is better plz.

Actually i totally agree with u.. Was more interested in why u wouldnt 3 bet in this spot and also if u meant that u would never 3 bet JT suited oop.. But im assuming u meant in this particular spot u wouldnt 3 bet oop.. And i agree

All of what Ranma said. My standard would be to bet this board very small with a wide range, which allows us to play a much more straight-forward strategy. I might mix in a few checks with the worst trips in our range, but against a nit, I'd just bet/bet/bet.

Any strategy that involves betting the flop big would involve me betting infrequently (a big reason why I wouldn't go with this strategy), which would mean I'd check flop with this hand a good amount of the time and would almost never bet big on all 3 streets with it.

Against a range of KK, 99 and AA we are almost a dead heat. Which means we need him to be calling down farther into his range than AA to value bet.

I think given that he can occasionally have other value hands that beat is (QTs, KJs, AJs), and we lose some amount more against KK and 99 than we win against AA (I'm assuming we call a raise some non-zero % for the purposes of discussion) that I would favor a check or a small bet/fold targeting AK.

Non show down $ /redline (big deal)
Balace/board coverage for 3b range w a hand that plays v well in 3b pots
live regs who play poorly in 3b pots (see results)

Deep, oop vs a nit reg tho, why?

Being deep isn't a big concern more of a positive w this combo-

Isnt it when we're oop and our hand has an equity disadvantage vs a player who likely both calls and bets for protection too often? Don't we beat tight ranges that have those traits by taking advantage of our implied odds and making them make bigger mistakes after the board gets there?

Seems like when we squeeze we may make up some money by getting some nitty folds pre, but then run into the issues post where the flops we connect hit our opponent as well and the flops we miss we have J high oop

Am I not giving enough credit to the live redline?

We have a hand that plays well on K/Q high boards without having a K/Q in it. Our opponent is nitty but opened the cut off so his range is fairly wide, we're going to get a lot of folds preflop, and he'll still have to fold a lot postflop when we bet because our range is so strong. We certainly shouldn't be 3betting this hand all the time, as we can profitably call, but 3betting it 10-25% of the time seems fine.

Low flops miss us, but they also miss our opponent as well, which is better when your hand is fairly dependent on fold equity postflop. Boards that we both hit are good for us because we can protect our J pairs fairly easily since our range is stronger than our opponents and higher boards that hit our opponent often have us having a dominating TPTK in our range which lets us bluff more with our JTs.

I will say that I think the preflop sizing is way too big, 420-480 unless villains range is super tight, in which case why are we 3betting JTs?

I hope the bold is a joke...

You punish nits by having "ATC" and a huge spr heading to flops. Spread the word!

There is not even room for 5-bet/folding - nobody is 'deep'. But as depth grows, the fold equity of 3-betting decreases while the importance of postflop equity realization and board coverage increases. Hence the increased importance of linear elements such as JTs. Overall, 3-bet range must narrow with greater depth, but I expect JTs to be among the last elements to remain - in fact I question the value of having any 3-bet range at a stack depth where JTs should not be 3-bet.

Why not (profitable does not mean maximally), and where on Earth does this number come from?

There are top players in 500 Zoom that 3-bet (not squeeze) to 12-15 BB at 100 BB deep. Certainly bigger is better when even deeper.

I really like your post.

For why we don't want to always 3bet JTs - we can profitably call with it, every combo we don't 3bet means we can add hands that we can't call with to our 3betting range, like K7s or 45s. The numbers come from my own work trying to figure out 3betting range with good board coverage - I'm adding a max of 1 combo of each 'bluff' in the range.

As for bigger being better - I don't know the situations that are allowing these zoom players to 3bet to 12-15bb with no callers, that seems absurd when most online opens are 2-2.5bb. In this specific situation, villains opening range is very wide and we would like to be 3betting him fairly wide, the larger we make our 3bet the more hands he can correctly fold, the stronger his range gets to the flop. I want to go small so he's making more of a mistake if he folds too much.

Bigger seems better if we think villain is going to play fairly fit/fold post and thus creating extra dead money is profitable, but being out of positions vs a regular, I assume this isn't going to be the case. Very open to hearing reasons why I am wrong.

Why r u so mean on the Internet and so nice irl? I thought only guys did that.

We're getting over 3.5:1 pre after the sb cold calls a nit reg CO open 175bb effective

What are we achieving/giving up by adding these 4 extra combos in our 3b range in this scenario?

if this was a HU pot 3b is fairly automatic, but given the sb call it becomes a similarly automatic flat.

pokersnowie recommends a 3b for JTs vs CO open 80% of the time, while facing the same CO open and a SB call snowie recommends to only squeeze JTs 7% of the time.

however, given that snowie does squeeze here some percentage of the time, it could be easily possible that a squeeze is best given dynamics (opener will overfold and have a nearly empty 4betting range)

Do you know why this is?

Because our good relative position makes us inclined to keep this a 3way pot, and/or because this hand has a good equity distribution in multiway pots, and/or because our range for squeezing should be more polar than it is when we 3! HU?

So many fancy words. Such theory. Many strat.

But really all of what you guys are saying is "I want to be sure I'm throwing a perfectly randomized range that includes 33% rock, 33% paper, and 33% scissors."

But the fact is villain himself is throwing at least 50% Rock.

So yall go ahead and keep working on those triple range merges while rubbing one out to a Sulsky vid, I'm just going to up my paper throwing a smidge by flatting pre flop.