25.99/19.07/1.96 villain

Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $3/$6
5 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (5 players) Mr.Hero is Button with T T
UTG folds, CO raises, Mr.Hero 3-bets, 2 folds, CO calls.

Flop: 8 8 Q (7.67SB, 2 players)
CO checks, Mr.Hero bets, CO calls.

Turn: 5 (4.83BB, 2 players)
CO checks, Mr.Hero bets, CO raises, Mr.Hero 3-bets ??????
Results:
Final pot: 8.83BB

Seems bad without a read that we like to c/r turn with draws because a flush draw seems to be the only hand that this play is optimal versus.

What do you beat here?

I'd hate to have to fold to a cap when we can get to SD for the same price, AND hit our 2 outer.

isn't the value from the free card play because the difference in price of a bet on the flop to on the turn?\

Let's compare this play to the standard calling down play against Villain's hand range.

Assumptions: Villain is capable of bluffing, thus our Tens still have showdown value.
(If the turn check-raise always means we are behind, just dump the hand.)

Villain's Possible Hands:

Trip 8's = Villain will cap. We will fold. We lose 2 bets. Same as calling down.

Q = Villain very likely calms down, calls our 3bet, and checks the turn. We see a free showdown. We lose 2 bets again.

Flush Draw = Villain likely calls our 3bet.
If he hits, he may try to check-raise the river. We take the free showdown and lose 2 bets.
If he hits and donk-bets the river, we fold and lose 2 bets.
If he misses, we win 2 additional bets. And given the possibility that Villain may not have bluffed the river again, this would mean that 3betting the turn was the most profitable option.

Complete Bluff = Villain likely folds to our 3bet. We win no extra bets.
But if we had called the turn, we might have gained an extra bet if Villain did choose to bluff again on the river.
Forcing him to fold does, however, eliinate the chances of being outdrawn on the river.


Conclusion:
You probably gain a little bit when Villain is on a draw.
You probably lose a little bit when Villain is on a total bluff (AJ).
And these factors probably come close to evening themselves out.
So it's close.
And because of this, I usually base my decision on another factor.

I base my decision on the chances of the bluffing hand outdrawing me.
If I hold a weak 66 here, I 3bet this to increase the chances of ending it right there.
I fear that even if VIllain is bluffing, he likely has overs to my 6's and could beat me on the river.
And gaining 1 more bluff-bet is not worth the chances of losing the whole pot, imo.

If I hold JJ here, the chances of being outdrawn are significantly less.
And so I don't mind giving Villain another chance on the river to bluff.
Thus I only call the turn raise.





I don't think this is that big of a concern.
Playing for a 2 outer never has much value.
And if we are shown more aggression after our 3bet, I think we just got the same answer that showdown would have given us.
Only if I were playing against a maniac, and Villain was capable of bluff-capping, would I insist on seeing showdown.


--CM

I think that's the most important part of what you wrote. On top of that, I think it helps our metagame/table image. We play an aggressive game and we're not afraid to 3bet a scary board so don't try to bluff us off