I understand what you're saying Redd as well as what everyone else has said.

The 3bet is justified and is +EV. 3betting does have a chance (very slim) of being -EV though.
Calling will ALWAYS be +EV.

The question is - which one is more positive.

The difference comes down to the equity added by knocking out overcards vs the added value of letting other hands remain.

If we are behind already, the value of knocking out overcards is nothing. And we are behind a large percentage of the time.

Other things to consider.

- the number of times you isolate yourself with a better hand.
- the number of times you can knock out a J. If this does work though, you add three 9 outs but implicitly take away a J out.
- The chance of a free card
- Would you make more on subsequent streets, when you make your hand, had you not 3bet and let others in or let others keep their initiative.
- Will someone else 3bet or cap anyway.
- Will players behind call two but not three when you are drawing.
- Will hands behind call 3 anyway.

These questions aren't easily answered.
- what are the likely holdings of the villians.
- how many bets are they willing to put in.
- will they be aggressive with marginal made hands.
- will they call two but not three.
- does he only raise with premium hands.
- are they capable of folding to continued aggression on a scary board.

I'm not saying that calling is better. I'm just saying that it's a little more complicated than "Easy 3bet"

FWIW. I 3bet.
IMO. The opportunity to gain the button for subsequent streets is the most compelling factor.

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] constructive discussion.