1/2 flopped set vs turn aggro

Hand is fine so far. Now I shove turn. He might have a straight, but we are ahead of so many of his holdings, and we have outs just in case.

Please put pot size on each street in future HH. Thanks.

I would comfortably shove at this depth and expect to be good most of the time. Very rare for players to slow play a flopped straight on a Broadway board against a preflop raiser.

I imagine V’s most likely holding is some combo draw that picked up equity OTT like KcXc.

I would also bet larger OTF on a wet dynamic board unblocking top pair.

We have 23% vs QT. On the turn, 50 to call a pot of 183. 50/233, or 21.5% direct odds. Hero has an additional 90 back, so our implied odds are 50/323. ~15-16%.

So we have odds to call. Shove, so V can't get away on a board pairing river, as already stated.

Java's right about the pot size request (which it looks like you did, thanks!), and I agree with fatman about cbetting bigger. Happy to get it in with middle set at 100 bigs. We're 35% vs QT on the flop, and we can be raised by other hands than QT.

Jam not much your losing to here! I even if he has a straight I think I would still be comfortable jamming this is a easy double up worthy situation being small stacked and a hell of a lot better to get your money in with good odds vs a preflop jam and pray.

I ship it here. Turn raises are nutted, but there are many two pair combos, 99, maybe even 55 as well as potentially draws, less likely naked straight draws but two clubs with a Q or T gutter or Kxcc that picked up the flush draw. We can discount KK for top set so we have great equity vs. a typical range here.

I would like to c/r this flop but we need to be damn sure someone bets as this flop checking through would be very bad for us.

Get it in and don't think twice. If he has QT, oh well.

It's normal a matter of whether or not we're beat. If we are beat, we're beat. It is a matter of if v can have bluffs or worse value that they will fold if we jam.

Vut at this point there is less than a half pot shove left, so rip it in.

Thank you gents, appreciate your comments on the hand.

This is a spot I struggle with - my cbetting size. With second top set we do want to build a big pot and looking back I agree I could have bet maybe 2/3 or more OTF. However, how would this change in these circumstances if we had:
- top pair, eg KQs
- straight draw, eg AQ
- weak hands, eg 77

In other words how not to make my range obvious with flop/turn bet sizing, or if I should care at all at this stake

Just check flop, to let one of our opponents stab at it. Then put in a big check raise.

As played, just jam turn.

I will preface this response with the fact that I am not particularly well-studied with solvers/GTO, although I do have a basic understanding.

Remember that solver outputs are often (mostly) mixed anyway, meaning that a variety of actions (check, small bet, large bet) can all be appropriate with weighted frequency.

I will also reiterate a common message on this forum - for the most part you can throw balance out the window at LLSNL and it will be more profitable to play exploitatively.

Even if one is going to use GTO strategy as a baseline, we should still be thinking initially what we would generally like to do with our RANGE on a specific board texture; but follow it up with what you may want to do with your specific HAND and whether that will deviate from the default.

Generally, we can bet smaller when we should have a high betting frequency and conversely bet larger when we have a low betting frequency on a given board texture and preflop configuration.

Fundamentally, I still like to ask myself what the purpose of my bet is (value, bluff, equity denial, or some combination of the above). This will drive your decision to bet. What will guide your bet size is how best to accomplish these objectives.

Small bet sizes will deny equity to overcards and weak draws and have wider/weaker value targets. Large bet sizes will be “polarizing”, targeting stronger hands for value and attempt more ambitious bluffs.

In this particular hand, we have a very strong “fat value” hand with value targets that include top pair. This is also a wet/dynamic board with turn cards that can either improve your opponent or discourage your opponent from calling further value bets.

Hope this info is better than other specific examples as it will prompt you to think about these factors and size accordingly.

We can avoid making it obvious what we have by range checking from OOP, especially when multi-way, even as the PFR, to let our opponents stab at the pot. When we check to let our opponents stab at it, we don't need to worry about how our bet size betrays our hand strength, because we're not doing the betting. They are.

At low stakes, our opponents tend to c-bet too frequently, close to 100%. So when we check as the PFR, they tend to take it as the green light to start betting, both for value and with bluffs. They think they'd c-bet with any part of the board, so when we check, they think we must have missed.

The more opponents there are behind us, the more likely it is someone will bet if we check. I'd expect this board in particular to get stabbed a lot, when it's king high, with two Broadway cards and a 9.

One of our opponents is likely to connect with this board in some way. Even if they didn't connect, they're likely to think they should connect with it enough to induce some bluffs.

How big our opponents bet when we check to them will determine what we want to do with our actual hand, regardless of what our range may be. We shouldn't be thinking about what our range wants to do at these stakes. We should be thinking about what our actual hand wants to do, based on our opponents' likely ranges, based on the action.

If our opponents don't stab at it, and instead they check back, that gives us the green light to make a delayed c-bet on the turn. We can size our bet based on THEIR ranges, not ours, knowing that they probably didn't connect with the board on the flop, when they just check back.

So, in this example, if we check and they bet small, we can go for a check raise. In fact, if they bet big, we can still go for a check-raise, though maybe we raise a little smaller. If they just check it back, we know they don't have much on the flop, so we can bet small on the turn.

If we had KQ, AQ, or 77, we wouldn't be check-raising the flop, and we might fold if they bet huge. But we could still bet the turn if they check back. Our thin value (KQ) would bet small. Our draws (AQ) and bluffs (77) would size up.

What we do on the river depends on the river card, and whether or not we want calls or folds.

There is nothing wrong with checking this hand on this board OOP multi-way with the intention of c/r. But there is certainly a happy medium between c-betting all the time and checking all the time OOP multiway.

With this hand on this board there are also disadvantages to checking. For example, having it check through. Although the check may hide our hand strength, the jig is up when we c/r as this typically defines our hand as stronger than one we would c-bet with. In turn, we may get less streets of value from top pair by playing it in this manner.

Again, c/r and betting is fine in this hand but I don’t think OP should employ an always check OOP strategy. His question to me was regarding bet sizing should we cbet which is why I didn’t discuss checking as an option.

This is golden, really appreciate your patience and willingness to give such a level of detailed response.

Results: