LOL @ both.

I'm actually starting to subscribe to this theory. People love to say "villains don't adjust"; but they do.

I made a similar play tonight. Guy made it $5 pre. 3 people flatted. I made it $40 with Q8s in the small blind. Everyone folded.

Two rounds later, I got $400 in the pot pre-flop with KK vs two underpairs because people thought I was so FOS when I 3-bet. I lost the hand, but one dude stuck in $150 pre with pocket 4s! I don't think I get that action if I don't 3-bet frequently.

I think metagame considerations are becoming more and more important as live players get better and better. If you've got a nitty, competent image, I'm starting to think 3-betting light is gold.

I don't mind the flop shove either. Lots of people shove AK and sets on the flop. Bad players do it because they don't want anyone sucking out. Good players do it to balance their overbet bluffs. Ed Miller for sure shoves a set of tens on this flop some of the time.

Huh? This is a tight 3-betting range. It consists of 44 value hands and about 50 bluffs. So I've got a very strong hand 46.8% of the time when I 3bet w/ this range.

With deeper stacks, that's probably way too conservative of a 3-betting range. I initially said I should 3-bet light lesser w/ shallower stacks, but there's on factor that seems to go against that: with shorter stacks, villain should fold small pairs more often to a 3-bet since the set mining odds aren't there.

i was addressing the hands you are choosing to "bluff" with, not the frequency that you 3b. you noted that in situations like this, hi-card value increases and suitedness/playability decreases in importance, so i was suggesting that you consider using a hand like ATo instead of 45s

Way too conservative of a 3-betting range? You must play in an alternate universe because I don't know any crushing live cash game players that 3-bet as much as you are advocating here.