I was talking about the 2k example of AQ I have been dealt in the SB. And if you rep a stronger range by 3b'ing in these spots and win more pots then there is more of an argument to 3b from the SB with your full range. I don't have a problem with flatting if it fits in with your style of play, but for the more aggressive players I have to think 3b'ing has to be a whole lot better for reasons I have outline previously.
Okay, if you filtered for AQ in the SB facing a CO raise then your inferences are likely somewhat reasonable. I mistakenly assumed that you had merely filtered for all spots in the SB facing a raise. My mistake. Although I would still advise caution and suggest you filter for stack sizes - there is a MASSIVE difference between 3betting AQ when 10-30bbs deep (when it will clearly be extremely profitable) and 3betting AQ when you are over 100bbs deep as in the actual hand.
TBH as I have said about three times already, I really have no opinion that I want to offer on the merits or otherwise of 3betting AQ in this spot. As I said, my
only point was that 'taking control of the pot' is not a valid reason to do anything. And in fact it is conceptually meaningless. If AQ is more profitable as a 3bet here (it may well be) it is not because 3betting 'takes control of the hand'.
This very shrewd post sums up my general opinion on the hand in question:
I'm sure you do have a real opinion either way and we'd love to hear it.
It's a tournament hand. He doesn't give a shit 
Author