[5-5]: Overpair facing a raise OOP

This isn't a good reason to bet IMO ... like do you just always bet TT here because you don't want it to check through, even though you know you shouldn't? What range do you actually check then?

Even if you should bet, size looks too big.

Seems like you already know.

Although FWIW I occasionally see people, who generally don't bluff enough, see a bet into a board the PFR range misses completely and decide to start blasting almost everything. V1 being UTG+1 makes that less likely, as his range "shouldn't" hit it either, and I'd probably just shrug and assume he snap fish called any small PP preflop and now has at worst 66.

Hard to comment on initial flop actions in a HH setting. A lot of checking should happen and bet sizes should usually be smaller, but betting this size with this specific hand is fine in a vacuum.

You're obviously continuing to the R33, it's just a matter of how much more money you're putting in after that and how often you're actually making it to showdown.

This hand's a fine candidate to 3b/f, but not everyone's gonna like (or be prepared for) the nodes you end up on there. It's also less necessary with a broadway BDFD.

You can also flat flop and cheer for the dealer to put a red 4 out there so you can fold and move on with your life.

I think people immediately get EQR MUBSy (new term just dropped) and assume they're either risking their stack or losing the hand, but there are plenty of times villain loses heart with a bluff OTT or are just as terrified of blowing up the pot with 54 or your flop 3b takes it down or slows them down or, hell, the occasional times the runout helps you aren't for nothing neither.

l I'm not going to dispute your assertion that V1 is a winning player; but cold calling in UTG2 with 6 players left to act is not winning poker. Is there a known LAG in HJ-BB that V would get FPS with AA waiting to raise a squeeze? Are the remaining players so passive that V1 basically set mines with most pairs? The former seems doubtful given your description of V1.

This flop definitely favors the field (V2 more than V1). But giving a free card is just wrong. I don't know why you guys are saying the cbet is too large. I'm betting in increments of 5 to keep the game moving. So it's 15 or 20. I prefer 20. You are uncapped. What overpairs is V raising you with? so he's repping A4s, 55, 33, 22 as value hands. And again if those hands are in his range then he's certainly max exploiting a passive table. He also has AcJc+, KcJc+, and because cold calling preflop was such a bad play, I'm including 7c6c. The question becomes is V raising his value hands at the risk of forcing out V2 and his remaining 75?

I agree with you that checking this flop is incorrect for the same reason that I believe you either raise or fold to V1 raise - too many turn cards that make it difficult if not impossible to continue. I would raise to 160 and fold to a raise.

Call the raise. Cbet and sizing is fine.

sizing / pre ranges rly looks like a worse than yours lol

Again, it's fine with specifically a big-but-vulnerable overpair, but it causes problems with most of the rest of our range.

Both players would have to fold a bare majority of their range for us to profitably bluff for this size, and given the tightness of this config, they should have tighter than 10% range width (probably not true of the fish, possibly true of the reg), so they only need to continue with 50-60 combos.

Sets, straights and 99+ is already ~30 combos (depending on how many you discount), and there are several dozen very strong draws (about a dozen of which are wholly ahead of us). So when we have 99-, we're slightly ahead of half the continuing range and way behind the other half.

If you think you can get away with betting literally only TT-QQ (and maybe some strong draws) for $20+ and either check or bet smaller with the rest of your range, then yeah you're probably right--at least in a vacuum for some stretches of your play. (ETA: Honestly, I'm talking myself into JJ-KK really being the part of our range that likes this play, but I think TT intuitively makes the cutoff for exploitative reasons because the field is much wider than they should be here.)

But the tree is enormous and there's a lot to track in the gameflow, so again, it's very challenging to talk about how well you're playing this spot in a single HH setting.

I’m fine with your early play.

This is a spot where villain either has big value or is taking a stab with 66 or a draw. If villain wants to play for stacks, you’re probably beat.

Looking to find out, before I fold this hand. So, raising $150 as ‘can definitely raise draws’ - Don’t like calling, because you go to the turn with no idea how to proceed.

Raise $150
Draws likely fold. If he calls, I check and he likely checks back thin value. If he re-raises or big bets the turn ‘doesn’t bluff enough’ then I’m done. I think you get the info you need with this bet to make a decision on what you’re up against.

They say you should never go broke with AK, but folding TT and even JJ is also a superpower. All three of these hands will cost you a lot of money, if you can’t get away from them. Laying them down to a bluff once and awhile is necessary. Stacking off with them is not necessary.

Folding the best hand should not bother you as much as stacking off unnecessarily.

I don’t pretend to know how to best play these hands in every situation, but you must be willing to let them go sometimes. I still remember a guy folding QQ pre-flop and going on to win ten million in the main event.

Grunch:

PRE - not sure why we're sitting so shallow in a 5/5 game. Seems like we'd want to be deeper, and raise bigger than 3x, at least to 20.

FLOP - I don't hate the c-bet. But OOP as the PFR on a wet and dynamic board, I'd mostly start with a check. With the Tc in our hand, we have some back-up equity on club turns.

When V raises, what we want to do here very much depends on how we range V1. Do we think he's calling wide pre, next to act, perhaps because our raise size was small?

Ordinarily, he shouldn't have any 2P, and very few sets on this board. Maybe he has a hand like A4s for a wheel, or possibly 55. On the other hand, if we think he's calling wide, he could have a lot more thick value here.

But when he has position on us, he'd sometimes slow-play with thick value, rather than start raising right away. His raise on this flop could just be an attempt to leverage his perceived range advantage as the pre-flop caller. He could have some sort of combo draw, with a hand like AXcc or 76cc/76ss. Maybe J4o with one club, for the memes.

I wouldn't fold. I'd just call. Mostly planning to check in flow on the turn, but donk-blocking some turn cards could be interesting.

I might donk for a small size on any Broadway card, a 4, or flush completing card. My reasoning is that he's mostly repping 2P / sets with his raise, and those hands are all going to hate any turn card that looks like it may have improved us to a better hand.

Two things about this

- this table was pretty soft, definitely 3bet frequency far below GTO. So nah, this is never a premium hoping to get squeezed
- I know you're not really supposed to flat from early position, but imE almost everyone does it. Even the strongest player at these stakes has a flatting range I believe. (Which because most tables 3bet below GTO probably isn't all that bad.)

Yea -- I'm not balancing my sizings in live poker and would probably bluff smaller here with other hands.

Bankroll limitations/variance lowering. I agree that playing deeper stacked is better, and also that larger opens are better. If things go not-badly for me from here on, I'll start increasing my buy-ins. Right now I do 400 for 2/4 and 600 for 5/5, and I raise 12 in 2/4 and 15 in 5/5. And just recently I started mixing in 14 and 16 LP in 2/4. Eventually, yeah 20 in 5/5 is probably better than 15. Not sure about 25, but maybe.

Seems like a clear continue to the small flop raise when he can have worse overpairs/some draws. 3-betting the flop would fold out the worse made hands and isolate you vs the sets and the ace-high flush draws, not exactly an appealing proposition.

Fair enough. Though if lower stakes games are available, I think we'd fare better playing deeper, assuming we have a skill advantage at higher SPR's.

Back to the hand, re-reading it, I am more suspicious that he's semi-bluffing, and will very likely check back most brick turns, to take a free card.

My reasoning is that A) we think he's a good player, and as such he should know this isn't our board as the PFR, B) he may be expecting us to size up with our turn barrel, making it harder for him to continue with his draws, and C) opponents are more likely to slow play nutted hands when they're in position.

I like his play. A 3B here would be interesting, but we'd probably just be folding out most of his bluffs and funneling his range into made hands and monster draws. Instead, I think we should call, but with a plan to donk-block some turns.

Rethinking the cards we'd want to donk, if we think he has a lot of semi-bluffs here, then maybe we don't want to donk on a 4 or a club, and instead focus our donks on over-cards that could make us a set but don't complete any draws.

I wonder if we could split our range, donking smaller on low or flush cards, with a plan to fold to a raise, and bigger on high cards. My thinking is that his better draws are going to be fairly inelastic on the turn, but will mostly give up by the river if they brick.

i actually didnt notice he chose more or less the max size that he can raise that lets v2 re open the betting. am torn between expecting him to do this vs flatting w good hands and letting v2 re open the action to potentially trap u. he also should have more traps pre and pretty much nothing that hits this board but people dont adjust well in general so im not sure what to think.

am inclined to think cbetting is not great based on both that idea and that it seems relatively easy for v2 to put in the money on this board if he gets checked to. i see the need for protection though so idk

will sim later if i remember but i think alot hinges on what v1 is doing pre. he dont really sound like a world beater though so would guess his range is not as strong as its could / potentially should be here

Yeh, this is fair ... I wouldn't be shocked if a good player could have a complicated/split betting range here, but the reasoning from OP seemed to be more "I knew I should check but went for exploit protection/value with my exact hand" which isn't that.

Also against most opponents I play against, even at 2-5, I would assume they have _way_ more 55/33/22 combos. than a solver has in its UTG+2 open range.

Ugh, only noticed this after sub. pointed it out ... if V2 had called and then V1 raised it would be more obvious and much more concerning, but even in this spot it looks like it could be intentional ($5 more is technically valid, but you are way more likely to end up in arguments with some dealers) and if it is then you should be very worried that V1 actually wants to put like 180+ into the pot on the flop.

Yeah, this is the first hint I've seen of acknowledging that other branches exist where money goes in. B35 protects against the random offsuit overcards spread out between the two players' ranges, but it doesn't touch the A-high + overs + draws + BDFD type stuff. Even just among the V2 bets small/bets medium/bets big and V1 calls/folds/raises nodes provides a lot of information and a substantial opportunity to protect even more than we are here (even if we just end up x/cing we probably get more protection when V2 inevitably sucks at sizing and bets double this or some sh--). If they end up going <$25 we usually end up raising ourselves, and now we're achieving what everyone's trying to do with a 3b in the actual HH but against a significantly wider range where we're actually getting value along with protection.

Honestly, for this reason you could make the case that we shouldn't use this size because even if you're range splitting, it should be between a smaller and a bigger (B50+) size. Which is usually the case with range splitting anyway: I don't think it's worth the headache unless there's a substantial (like 3x) difference in what you're achieving with each size.

Also, if you're someone who does a lot of checking on this flop, it's helpful to think about how you can attack your opponents when there's 4 checks and a blank turn. Your redlines are probably just limping down and to the left in spots where everyone's screaming they don't have anything but you're helpless to do anything but join the checking party. (I personally don't love this branch, which is why I do as little checking as I can get away with.)

I agreee with all the points about being more aggressive with this vulnerable pair.

Good point by RA. If this is our line of thinking, might as well bet bigger otf. This also discourages Vs from getting quite as creative and makes it a bit clearer where we stand when facing aggression.

In the real world of lsnl, I lean to a call in these spots. If we are making better decisions more decisions are better.

Lots of Vs will puss out and check missed draws ott, while they would never check sets on such a wet board.

If a 4 comes, we can see how V reacts and potentially bluff him off a set or maybe jj or qq here and there.

If a club comes, we have good equity against a set and he might check.

There might be players/scenarios in which it is better to just go with it, or even fold. But vs a straight forward player, I'd probably go with the call.

i dont think you're going to be able to make a theoretical case for bigger tbh

i am someone who would check range here and my redline goes up (albeit slowly)!

id never use 2 sizings here otf, its just too likely you're going to mess up the execution. doubly so in a weird once off situation with a bunch of unusual variables

Reveal:

I thought that Villain mostly had draws and smaller pocket pairs here. Against pocket pairs, calling is probably better, but against draws, raising is much better. If I just call I have to check the Turn, and then Villain just gets two cards for free. And then if anything completes and he bets, I have to fold. Yuck.

Hero raises 180. Villain tanks, then asks if we check through if he calls. I didn't know if that would be binding (I guess it would have been) and it would cap my range, so I said no. But maybe should have said yes because asking the question makes it sound very much like he has a pair. But regardless, I said no. Villain tanks more and then open-folds 9♦9♥.

Well played and an Interesting hand
You made villain think he was playing for stacks and he declined. Aggression wins.

If you had the nines and he had the tens, you probably would get the same result. The population is afraid of 4Bets and usually fold. We should all probably find more spots to 4bet light.

You have to play middling pairs fast early, so if you do run into a hand, it doesn’t cost your stack. Calling along, you get to the river and the big bets with no idea where you stand.

The old "seeing where I'm at" raise. I'll admit I hadn't considered he may be doing that with a worse 1P that wasn't 1P + a draw.

I have no idea how a solver would play his hand, but in the real world, his line seems pretty meh. I doubt he could say for sure if he was intentionally turning his hand into a bluff. Hard to figure out what an opponent is doing when they don't know.

If you had taken the line I suggested, and donked out on a draw completing card or a Broadway card, you'd have been intentionally turning the best hand into a bluff, but without necessarily realizing it. He may or may not have folded, and we may not have gotten the reveal we did.

Whether he folds to your flop 3B or folds to your turn donk, we're not getting any more value from him, and we're turning the best hand into a bluff in both lines, which may be a mistake we'd be making.

I would suggest your read of V1 likely needs to be updated in light of this reveal. We ought to keep in mind that he'll flat pre with middling pairs, and can play them aggressively when he doesn't flop a set but still has an over-pair on a low board that likely missed us.

I don't know if we'd say he's over-bluffing or making a polarization mistake. Maybe it's both. But if we know he's capable of playing his middling over-pairs this way, I'd think the adjustment would be to just c-bet normally, and call when he raises, to let him over-play his hand.

As a side-note, I disagree that we have to check to him on the turn if we just flat the flop, especially when he uses such a small raise size. I think donk-blocking certain turn cards for either a small or large size would make for an interesting play versus his likely range.

To be clear, I meant betting all your value and checking all your air is bad for your redline. If you’re checking range, you’re perfectly capable of attacking capping actions later.

So I don't like betting a really big size. Because then it just looks like an overpair. Whereas 20 just looks like a normal bet.

I get the thought process -- that if you're going to make your range unbalanced and leak information, you'd at least want the bets to be noticeably different, rather than 15 vs. 20 (which is realistically what it is; I'd probably bet 15 with other hands here). But I don't really consider unbalancing my range to be a cost at all, and I just don't think betting 30 here is good. Maybe if opponent is bad, but this guy would probably read that as exactly what it is.

Nah, he's not good enough to do that. This is too advanced.

I don't think I agree with this general logic (that just calling makes more sense vs. a straight-forward player). Maybe if we do what dovcail suggested and donk. But presumably your idea was to just check Turn if we call Flop. So say we call, Turn is a blank, we check, he checks. I agree we've now eliminated sets, but that's it. An overpair doesn't have to bet again, and a draw also doesn't need to bet again. Then if the River is another blank, presumably we're forced to check again. Maybe in some branches we could do something, like if the draw completes and he makes a small River bet, maybe we could bluff raise him off his hand. But on the whole, the calling part of the tree doesn't seem like it's great for leveraging a skill advantage.