BTW, 9-high flops don't come by that often. You won't be able to soul-read Villain for QJo. For example, flop may come AKx. Are you going to cbet TT there? If you don't cbet TT there, QJo is going to realize its hot-cold equity very easily. If you cbet there, you will be giving away some free money to AJ and KQ.

There are countless examples where TT will have an unfavorable flop texture where TT will either spew out with 2 outs with a cbet bluff into a better flopped pair or TT will give free cards to hands that have 2 overcards that whiffed the flop.

Just as overcard hands often miss the flop, TT often gets an unfavorable flop that TT doesn't want to cbet.

Having a midpair with the initiative against 2 overcards isn't nearly as profitable a situation as you guys think it is...

Just to clarify: is JQs not considered a suited connector?

It came down to image. If we are known to be a active raiser and 3! Then the $65 would probably have gotten called by inferior hands. We take it down pre though here.

This has been a great thread because there's much to consider. Specifically, though, with position and a three, possibly four way pot, and wig a hand we've under repped, and with eff stacks less than 100bb, we have a very solid chance of doubling up here.
While V1 and V2 may not be aggro raisers, V1 is at least somewhat likely to bet flop and V2 somewhat likely to call flop. If we flop our set in position, depending on board texture and how likely we think it is for one of them to bet turns we can raise flop or wait and raise turn. Given position and that our hand is somewhat concealed, we won't have to drive all the betting ourselves, and with starting stacks less than 100bb, getting in stacks is definitely possible. V1 bets flop, we raise, then bet turn and river. V1 bets flop, bets turn, we raise turn, fire river. I'm not suggesting its 100% that we can get stacks should we flop a set, but in a raised pot, with possibly four way action, and a starting stack below 100bb, we have a very good chance of being able to do so.

If button calls, blinds fold, 13bb in pot pre flop. Flop AT2r.
V1 c bets 6bb, folds to us, we flat, button folds. 25bb in pot
Turn, V1 bets 10bb, we raise to 25bb, V1 calls. 75bb in pot, we have 64bb left. We can shove river.
If anyone else comes along, the numbers are even easier. Again, im not suggesting that it will always work out perfectly, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think we can play for stacks in this spot with our position.

I wasn't implying that each of those were deciding factors on their own, but that all of them were contributing factors, and that some factors outweigh others ones. I agree that if villain has a 4-betting range of QQ+/AK but opens and calls with a super wide range of worse hands then I would still 3-bet.

As for the part that you disagreed with, I play with a lot of wannabe bad LAGs that open far too wide and defend too wide thinking they can "outplay" everyone post flop. Against these types I almost always 3-bet TT because they are never folding all the junk they opened with, and TT has a huge equity advantage vs a super wide range. These types will also bluff too often post flop or try to rep hands in spots where they are repping too narrow (they feel obligated to make some kind of move to win the pot to justify their pre-flop spew, but range wise they just can't have it most of the time) giving me profitable bluff catching opportunities.

GRNCH

I would flat here pre as taking TT 5-6 way to the flop will show better overall profit imo, and i am not advocating set mining as the only avenue here. Caution postflop yes, but we still have a nice SDV hand to work with. Will require skills post, but that is what we are after anyhow.

The $15 3x utg raise kind of does throw this towards a 3 bet so i can see how quite a few will go that direction. If we knew more about the villains (any) call 3 bet OOP tendencies we could make a case for it I am sure.

I think that 3betting TT for value against bad LAGs who open far too wide and defend too wide is simply a straightforward and easy value raise.

When you said the following: "It's better to 3-bet if villain will overplay his draws or bad pairs or make bluffs because these things add value to your hand."

That statement is a lot different than the one you just made now. I think you were just busy and didn't really type up a good post. I agree with the post that you made now, but I think it is just a case of going for a 3bet for value against bad LAGs who overestimate their postflop skills and therefore raise/call a wide and weak range against 3bets.

I am going to assume that you just made a poorly worded post earlier (I felt that I needed to clarify it because a lot of live NLHE rookies would have taken your earlier post to start 3betting mid-pairs religiously against solid TAG/LAG regs for no good reason), and I am going to agree with your new post. I know that you know what you are doing, so I am not going to beat you up for a poorly written post that you probably hurried through.

This is just semantics, but I consider JTs-54s to be SCs, and I consider QJs/KQs to be suited Broadways.

Said more simply:

We add more value hands - almost certainly including a hand as strong as TT - to a merged 3-bet range against bad LAGs (or any bad passive player) who call our 3-bets way too wide. Right?

While the discussion of various utg tendencies is valuable, it does get away from the OP at hand (unless it was mentioned on an earlier page).

Here the UTG is not known well at all. V2 is tight, hero image is tight and playing a 400bb stack which suggests tighter/nittier range mostly. Having said all that I doubt we should extrapolate that the V are going to play super wide vs our 3 bet should we do it.

The more we know the villains tendencies, the more we can exploit them obviously.

Grunch.

Flat call pre-flop since it's already raised against calling stations AND in position. If a ten comes on the flop, bet $75 on flop, $150 on turn, shove river for $230. Easy game.

Least amount of risk for the most amount of money.

Grunch. I can't help but feel like op is making the "positionally unaware" statement without real evidence and this small piece of our read skews the decision.

I'm flatting here as a default but if V1 will call a 3! With worse pps I would consider raising for value and to ISO him.

As a side note, Garrick you do seem to post a fair number of 3! Spots pre with middle pocket pairs. I just tend to open or flat with these most of the time. I don't feel that I encounter too many spots where 3! Is the right play... This could be one. I think it's close.

Gorilla math incoming

Something like 60% of the time were gonna bet the flop and get folds, or get calls by worse when all we have is 2nd pair or an over pair, and just play poker.

I think we are discounting that, when we DO flop a set, and one of the other players flops top pair(or even has an overpair,or just a stubborn second pair), we don't expect him to play for stacks on the flop, we bet a callable amount for a top pair hand to see a turn, and then another callable amount for him to see a river.

24% of the time a player flops top pair, they will either have trips or two pair by the river, which usually means stacks.

I hate it when people use the term "play poker." What the hell does that even mean?

I think it means bet and hope V folds.

it means to play and make your decisions one street at a time. did you guys read the stickies in the beginners forum yet

This is called bluffing, not "playing poker."

Is there any other way?

I was being sarcastic because I agree that it is a catch-all meaningless term.

I'd 3 bet to $60

Holy thread necromancy!

Indeed.

I like SABR's arguments for a flat, but I'd say all three villain descriptions and V3's tell incentivize 3-betting more. I expect to see continues from plenty of worse hands, and likely win position. It will not be difficult to navigate a HU pot with overcards vs. either V1 or V2, so we'll likely over-realize showdown equity vs. them relative to a good player who could force us into more bluffcatching scenarios, and there will be more hands present in their ranges to get value from than there should be.

+1

A lot of nostalgia seeing some old posters along with sadness in seeing one we lost to the devil's game.

Well crap, earlier I saw this thread but apparently just read the first page and completely missed that you tend to flat TT rather than 3bet. Anyways, tonight I actually ended up 4bet jamming TT and they held up. High Five! Thanks for the advice. I'll flat them in the future.