3-betting as opposed to folding situations

[Wynton]

I've been wondering whether I'm missing opportunities by folding some hands, rather than 3-betting them. Consider the following situations.

(1) You are in co. A TAG (who is solid post-flop) raises in mp. If you 3-bet, you can be relatively sure the hand will end up HU. Do you fold or 3-bet with:
-K10o
-KJo
-Q10s
-A9s
-A8s
-A7s
-J10s

(2) Now assume that the MP player is somewhat of a LAG, i.e., he open-raises lightly and will follow up with aggression on the flop, but is not a maniac and will slow down eventually. You still expect a 3-bet to get it hu. Do your answers change at all?

(3) Assume that the MP player is weak/tight. So his open-raise means he has a premium hand, but he is also capable of folding post-flop too easily. Do your answers change?

(4) Finally, assume that the MP is kind of in between a TAG and a LAG, but now you expect that the BB will call even if you 3-bet. BB is basically very loose, likes to see flops and turns, though often folds on the river. Do your answers change now?

I might pop (2) with A8s and (3) with J10s. Figuring I have a better hand vs (2) and Im not dominated vs (3).

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
I might pop (2) with A8s and (3) with J10s. Figuring I have a better hand vs (2) and Im not dominated vs (3).

[/ QUOTE ]

Vs a weak tight raiser who might have TT-AA, AJ+, AQ+, you are often dominated with JTs.

TT - 3 combos - dominated
JJ - 3 combos - dominated
QQ - 6 combos - dominated
KK - 6 combos - dominated
AA - 6 combos - dominated
AJ - 12 combos - dominated

AQ - 16 combos - not dominated
AK - 16 combos - not dominated

Dominated in 36. Not dominated in 32. When you are not dominated, you are behind, and this passive guy won't like folding his AK very often. I think it is way too expensive to 3-bet, just fold.

I fold them all in every situation. Even against a LAG, you're dominated most of the time.

The only exception is JTs which I might 3-bet or just cold call if the initial raiser is weak-tight post flop and/or the blinds tend to come in most of the time. I don't mind HU against weak tight and I wouldn't mind 4-way with JTs, so I'm good whichever way it goes.

It depends a little on how he plays but a 40/30 guy wont have you dominated imo. Sure it adds a bit of variance but if the blinds fold I think its +EV.

[Guy McSucker]

I fold them all. Domination sucks.

Guy.

[wackjob]

I fold all these hands. Once in a while I will 3-bet with J10s or any of these hands, but almost never against a solid TAG.

[Spicymoose]

We now have 3 people who have said they would sometimes 3-bet with JTs. I think that is awful. Who knows, maybe I am wrong though.

[Wynton]

Seeing these responses, perhaps I haven't been missing out on chances after all.

I'm just trying to come up with some borderline hands for 3-betting. Clear 3 bets to me are: AK, AQ, AJs, KQs and pocket pairs of 88 and up.

If the ones I mentioned before were clear folds, then how do people feel about 3-betting with AJo, A10s, A10o, KQo and 77 (with the lineup I mentioned before)?

[ QUOTE ]
We now have 3 people who have said they would sometimes 3-bet with JTs. I think that is awful. Who knows, maybe I am wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually it's awful. If the initial better is weak-tight post flop though, you've got a good shot at getting them to fold a better hand (AK/AQ/AJ/AT) that misses the flop because you're showing you've got them beat. To some extent, you could pull this stunt with any 2 cards, but JTs is a semi-bluff since you can actually hit something and(this is important) it's a hand where you don't mind the blinds coming in. Trying this move with 27o just because the initial raiser is weak-tight leaves you totally screwed if one or both blinds come in.

Still, it's usually terrible.