Anyways its a pretty pointless discussion, i guess i just believe there are a myriad of better 3-bet candidates, and unless you feel the need to 3-bet every single time you have a hand between said myriad of hands and 95s, then why not just choose to 3-bet better hands and balance/optimize your range in that way?

Then again i guess in doing that you forgo some of the ability to establish control of the match and build momentum whenever you want and w/e so i guess thats a disadvantage to 3-betting more sane hands.

Anyways if u conceded that your 3-bet was in order to establish control/history/image and that made it ok despite it being fairly significantly negative ev in a vacuum vs anyone decent, then I guess I could agree.

I just believe that reason needs to be firmly established, and not just like "i was mixing up my play and it was sooted" or w/e.

Also an underlying factor is that you need to be playing fairly well postflop with these sort of hands to even have a positive postflop expectation, since these hands carry a ton of neg implied odds, what with kicker issues, flopping dominated flush draws, getting too carried away with bluffs and hero calldowns etc. Noting also that these sorts of negativities become amplified when you are playing someone against whom you have few reads. (EDIT: as exemplified in op, game set match bitch)