2. this is a common sizing for guys who steal a lot
3. we do not have any info on villain so we do not know he is a weak player who won't fold T9o here, or a regular who is stealing a lot but folding a lot vs 3bets
You contradict yourself completely. Either you have a read or you don't?!!
OK lets assume not and the player is unknown. Then we fall back on your *general* line of 3-betting wide because *people* fold too much and this player is betting like he is stealing. So why are you not saying this is your original post -- why is it all *probably* and *maybe*. Either you are saying you have a read and take line X or you have no read and you use line Y.
This should be clear -- your strategy should be defined and the reasons for it -- so there is no *maybe* or *perhaps*. If there are options -- they should be defined. Strategic thinking becomes a PLAN. No plan and you are going to struggle.
How about saying:
I 3-bet here because I expect my opponent to fold too much to 3-bets. I have position and a hand that has good playability post-flop. My plan is to take down the pot pre-flop, fold to a 4-bet or play on post-flop if I have reasonable equity. Overall though, I expect to make enough through getting him to fold to make this action immediately profitable.
THAT is a strategy.
Go check your Poker database and see what the % fold the 3-bets is in spots like this. You may find it is not what you think, or you may be right. But if you do not define your strategy for spots like this then you make your game harder, your thinking woolly and end up making feeble posts like your original reply.
4. expanding value 3bet range instead of having a polarized range will lead to domination issues
This statement on its own demonstrates you do not understand 3-betting theory AT ALL. If your opponent is raising T9o here -- then you can certainly widen your 3bet range without worrying about *domination issues*. This is a point you would only raise if you did not understand why you would use a polarized range versus a value/merged range.
If you think people are folding too much to 3b then use a more polarized range to include bluffs and call with your playable-but-not-super-strong hands and play poker post-flop. Most money is made post-flop in case you had not noticed...
Use a more merged range is they start calling your bluffs and playing hands like 2nd/3rd pair plus weak-kicker to showdown (quite often in blind wars).
5. have you figured out how often we will hit on the flop and how we are playing after that?
Have you? Why do you not provide this information yourself in your OP?
If you can't provide any calculations about this spot or analysis from a large hand sample etc.. I think we have to agree to disagree 
You don't need calculations in this spot to create a workable strategy. What is needed here -- at this level -- is an understanding of reasons to do things -- not precise mathematically defined ranges designed to eek out a small 0.1BB/100 extra edge against solid opponents. Sure do the math if you want -- but its already been done and the strategy is out there -- much of it is self-evident to even the partially-educated micros players.
Such things as perceived versus actual ranges, playability and polarized/merged ranges are good to know as they deepen understanding and help us create easily implementable strategy based on observed tendencies -- but its simply not necessary to delve deeply into them here. What is better is clear, unambiguous lines with solid reasoning behind them.
In other words it makes poker simpler to play.
It is true that fast poker we have less reads to go on -- but not so much that we play only a *general* fuzzy strategy in all spots. There are plenty of times you will see the same players -- even on Pokerstars micros zoom tables the typical player pool is in the 700 or so range and on other sites it is significantly less.
7
T
(2 players)
