This.

Yeah, the real difference between our opinions is how we range the villain preflop. I think strongrad also implied this in his response to my post above.

I'll clarify what I mean by fundamental #1.

At my room, most if the 1/3 players are very passive. They flat raises with AK pre. They look down at JJ? Flat. Every time. Some of these passive players raise QQ, but many still just flat it. This is probably 70% of players in my room. There are also 15 or 20% spewtards who 3-bet randomly. They could have AA, 33, T4s. Then there are about 10 or 15% of players in the room who are smart, aggressive winners. They have a wider 3-betting range, down to TT/AQ, depending on the circumstances, and some of them even have some bluffs with suited connectors in position when deep, and Ax squeezes too.

So at any given table, I should look around and expect to see, on average, 6 players who only 3-bet KK+. Yep, this sounds about correct for where I play.

Since this is my experience (yours may be different), I naturally assume that all 3-bets are KK+ until proven otherwise. If I see someone 3-bet with JJ or AK, I reprofile them, but not before that. If someone hasn't been to SD but has been 3-betting a lot, I reconsidrr my profile of them as well. And if I have alot of history with a villain, and he 3-bets for the first time that I can remember, I certainly assume he has KK+.

This is my summary of fundamental #1 and is pretty much what the preflop decision hinges on: whether his small 3-bet is KK+ or wider. I want to assume only KK+ since we have no proof otherwise. The hard facts (he hasn't 3-bet, at least not that we can remember, also the bet sizing) support KK+, while the softer facts (he gets in leveling wars and makes moves against other villains, he might be squeezing really small) support a wider range.

Do you at least see why I think my reasoning is pretty sound while your reasoning sounds fanciful? I guess we both are making assumptions which is what poker is about (incomplete information). What are you basing your wider range for him on?

Mostly basing it on hero's description of villain. Anyone who talks as much poker at the table as hero described has a wider 3 betting range when the action is open/call/call than KK+. In fact, in the game I play in, for many opponents, this could be anything from AA to suited two-gappers (97ss).

Obviously what I am getting at is that this is an opponent specific situation. There are some opponents at 1/2 whose 3 betting range is KK+. If you pay attention, you know who those people are. I can assure you, in most card rooms, these people are not as common as your post suggests.

Besides, if this is an unknown, and this is the first time, with all the dead money in there, 4 betting serves so many purposes - you see how he reacts, he can call with worse and you play a pot in position where you can control the action, he doesn't have to fold that often for it to be profitable, and you don't get put in a spot where the flop comes 932r and you don't know what to do. I really cannot stress how bad flatting is, especially with two more villains, who would (read will) have position on you if you flat, putting you in the middle of the initial 3 bettor and two people whom you have no clue what they could have. I feel like I am saying the same thing over and over. I might start typing in all caps because I feel like I am shouting this. I am really not shouting it, I swear.

Perhaps your card room is a bunch of old retirees or something who don't like to gamble and just go to get away from their wife for a while. Where I play, and in most places I have played a typical three betting range in this spot is MUCH wider than KK+.

So you honestly believe Villain will not only flat the one combo of Queens, plus JJ, TT, and AK, but overcall three callers with those hands preflop? Especially a "thinking" player who has shown the capability of bluffing in previous hands? You seem to be basing this on a generic stereotype while myself and the poster above are doing this based on the specific villain. Even if you haven't seen the villain 3bet pre, there are other clues of someone's game that can clearly explain a lot of their tendencies.

That's just too rigid and too absolute of a rule. You must play in the tightest room in America, because I've played in a lot of different rooms and this hasn't been the case anywhere I've played. I don't know where you're getting the number of 6 players per table either, seems a bit arbitrary.

Again, this. You're nailing it on the head IMO.

Thanks man.

I have a couple more new thoughts/clarifications, but I, like you, am running out of things to say.

If he can 3-bet 97ss, it's very odd that we haven't seen him 3-bet before now. So the question is: do we play with this guy for hours, don't notice him 3-bet ever, then put him on a wide range here because of how he talks about poker? This is problematic to me. It's just so shaky and guesswork-y; I'd rather base my read on how he plays.

If I see someone 3-bet once in 4 hours, I'm putting him on KK+; doesn't matter to me whether he "seems" like the type to 3-bet lighter, or whether he talks a lot about poker strategy. Unless, of course, he 3-bets after 3 hours and shows down JJ. Then I assume he was just card dead.

I guess I just like using facts (showdowns, 3-bet percentages) over player typing (poker talk, age and race being other examples).

Maybe the real mix up is simply that you think the villain's post flop FPS translates into him 3-betting lighter, and I don't. If I had played with him for an hour and saw the post flop spew, I would assume the same as you and 4-bet in this hand. But after a couple more hours of no 3-bets I'm putting him back in the "3-bets KK+ only" category.

I guess I play in a weird 1/3 room. There's alotta old people in Santa Fe. I'd estimate about half the 3-bets I see are KK+.

Great answer / points of emphasis guys. I keep typing out long responses but fitzthetaxman & strongrad50 are super sharp and on the ball and I don't have too

Fwiw, It's clear you play in an OVERLY nitty/tight room & player pool, dundesrton. But in a vacuum its understandable what you are saying, and what you are expressing is more then logical, from your perspective.

having said that, I think its imo that;

#1 - Is too weak passive of a belief, for everyone to just adopt as true
#2 - Is too "matter of fact" of a belief.
These two beliefs need to be based on villains descriptions and player specific less so stake specific. Yes, I agree, the sizing does make it a for a less then optimal squeeze, but I was looking for a better read on villains pre flop playing style to determine what is possible.

Re-raising smallish for value isn't terrible, because we knowwe will be getting weak calls from V some of the time. Just as flatting for pot odds set mining isn't terrible having multiple players with strong top set possibilities.

4 betting is simply an alternate line option available to us when we are deep stacked. Personally I'm fine doing either one & flatting would be more comfortable for me as well between to two choices if OP knows its going to be his last hand already and doesn't want to tangle in a big pot because he's about to leave.

Dunderstron - "Hero super thrilled that villain just told him she has AA/KK and calls to set mine. Obv planning on folding all flops without a queen and probably AQx flops. Willing to get stacked by KK on KQx flops."

This example where you out flopped AA with QQ VS an ABC-tight female fish (no pun intended) was fairly lucky for you. I think it's a leak If your obv planning on folding all <Q-high flops. You're weighing that decision on this specific player and not OP's Villain. They are completely different spots & players/styles.

It's fine for OP to flat & fold flop when he doesn't make a set. He went with his read played according to it and followed through with the plan. The merits of flatting for set odds are profitable. But, to say you avoided being levelled into a "bad" play by not re-raising pre for value or iso'ing purposes cannot be fair, how can we know that to be true? Again, I am still fine with OP
s play.

Guys guys, I don't think anyone is attempting to come off as condensing. Were all just speaking on our collective experiences & knowledge. Passion is often misconstrued for arrogance.

Edit: you shouldn't be so fast in cross referencing your HH example with the chick with OPs hand/villain in this spot, they are vastly different dynamics other then sizing. (min raise) from her is more weighted too AA/KK than it is in OPs hand.

That was a likely a very shrewd and disciplined way to play the hand OP. Nice job not going bat sh*t crazy with QQ just because you have QQ. Rather you looked at the relative strength of your hand and played accordingly. Mostly players lose their stack here and blame it on a cooler. Also, it's important to note that just because a player has certain fishy tendencies in one aspect of their game, doesn't mean that you can apply those same tendencies to all other aspects of there game. For example some guys bluff too much in little pots, but actually play pretty decent when the real money comes out. And some players raise way to wide when the table dynamics don't call for it, but their 3 betting range is actually extremely tight. I think some people in this thread forgot this.

When you are not being condescending but are worried about coming across as such, never underestimate the power of the smiley face imo. I actually don't think we are being condescending here, but tiptoeing around it instead. Well, except for getting called a donk earlier. :P

The hands (this one and mine) are pretty different due to dynamics, stack sizes, and villains. What I see that's similar is a small "reel-you-in" 3-bet. If this guy rarely 3-bets then I see it as especially applicable but then we are back at the same disagreement.

Bleh, feel free to ignore my sizing argument. It may or may not apply. The thing it really boils to is: hero has played with villain for "a few sessions" (I'm guessing some hours) and hasn't noticed him 3-bet yet. What 3-bet% have we observed from him? Like 2%? I'll just go ahead and put all of my eggs in this basket. Feel free to ignore any other point I've made. We shouldn't 4-bet QQ against someone who 3-bets 2%, imo.

We have no objective facts suggesting that villain is 3-betting 2%. If you want to read that into it after the fact to make your point, that is fine. If Villain is willing to play fold equity post flop (i.e. by getting it in on draws etc. like op stated, then I think he is likely to do it preflop too, especially in an ideal squeeze spot like this.

Regarding all this V's 3 betting range discussion, I think it's important to remember what's standard at this level. And then assume that players are acting in a standard way until they show otherwise. No one can prove thru "objective facts" that our V is only 3 betting QQ+, but it's highly likely. And that's good enough for me in a game of partial information with hardly any absolutes. I've only logged about 1200 hours at 1/2, but I'd estimate that about 95% of all players from my player pool only 3bet QQ+ (not even AK) from the blinds for this smallish sizing against a player who they know is playing snugly.
So when I played this level I would always instantly assume all 3 bets I saw on my table were QQ+, until that player proved otherwise. Or until their 3bet freq got so outta wack that I decided to play back at them. This strategy was highly exploitable, but it was also highly profitable. And when a guy showed up and tried to exploit my tendency it was usually fairly obvious. This forum has a wealth of info about stereotypes and all things "standard". And I suggest that they be used as starting point. Perhaps the posters arguing for a wider V range in this thread play in games where 3bets occur much more frequently than what I'm used to. And so they are correct when they apply this situation to their normal game. Perhaps the OP also plays in a game like this but doesn't realize it, but I doubt it.

I will own up to this 100%, I read your post too quickly and thought Hero stacked off with TPTK and not top set, totally my fault. You are not a donk, dund! I read it so fast that I thought Hero was someone you knew and it wasn't even you playing the hand.. Reading 2p2 while at work can be a quick adventure and I tend to miss some things, read too fast, and not fully think out a response because I don't have the time to. A leak in my posting game, methinks.

I gave you credit earlier saying you seemed to know what you were talking about, so calling you a donk would be contrasting statements to say the least. I do apologize!

Also I understand where your rules are coming from, def from a logical point of view, just have a difference of opinion. Sorry if I came off as harsh. Would have really liked to know what villain had..

I think my normal game is much more aggressive than Dunder's game...that goes without saying. Although I play 1/2 at Foxwoods and Mohegan on a regular basis and I can say that in most games there villains that are similar to the villain described in the original post have a wider range than QQ+.

I was basing my analysis off of hero's description of villain. I stand by it 100%

So that's the 64 million dollar question. What is this V's pre-flop 3 Betting/Squeeze range?

I'd agree with this, for all players, starting off.

True, I see 3 bets coming from every which way in my games, especially from OP's V-type description. (i.e) I commonly see light and small 3bets at least once per orbit by a 'competent' 'thinking' maniac types. Which leads me too want to place him in that category. But, OP's uncertainty in his recollection of V's 3 betting tendencies "I don't recall him 3betting in our history, although he very well could have." makes narrowing V's pre-flop 3Betting range harder to do accurately but assuming KK/AA would be overly snug, for me. But totally fine for OP to proceed as he did.

I haven't touched 1/2 NL in over a year, but at the small card room I played in I'd estimate that most players didn't even 3bet with AK, and a limp/call line was pretty popular too. So different worlds...
And the OP isn't really helping things by not having a better grasp on this V's 3betting tendencies, which seems like a leak to me since it sounds like they've played together for some hours. Against a lot of players you learn more by watching the showdowns that they didn't 3bet than the hands they do since the former is much more common.