QQ in a minefield

All-in on the flop

I prefer to c-bet bigger against these villain types. Good flop for your hand to 3-bet too.

I'm not sure how we change our cbet strategy due to the BTN cold caller, maybe make it like 50-60% instead of 75%? Cbet size is too small imo even 3way. I think I go like $80 flop hope V2 jams over the top or else he calls and then I jam myself on any non flush completing turn.

Grunch:

PRE - Curious about the $35 raise size over a UTG open. Is that because we think he's opening too wide, or because we just want to make sure no one cold-calls behind us, or that's just the 3B size we're using today? I mean, it seems fine. Mostly just curious if there was some thought behind it, and if so, what that thought was.

FLOP - the c-bet and its size seem pretty standard. Not loving it when V2 calls and V1 x/r's. But then again, why is he using this dinky 2.5x size from OOP?

Don't know about you, but I might read that as weak, and it might lead me to 3B here, especially when we don't have any back-up equity (no Qh in our hand). If V2 only has $90 back, that's going to trigger my raise instincts even more.

I think I'd want to raise this up to $225, maybe - enough to let V1 know we're not screwing around, and make him think we'll be jamming turn nearly 100% of the time.

TURN - Interesting spot. We have like $315 back?

Not sure, but it seems like the best play is to check, hoping it checks through, or hoping that V2 jams for his last $90, and we can watch how V1 reacts. We're calling the $90 whether V1 calls or folds. Not sure what we do if V1 jams, but...maybe we fold?

If the turn checks through, we can bluff-catch the river, assuming V1 doesn't come out and go 2/3 pot or more.

This spot is weird at 1/3, because a lot of players just don't have any 4B range pre, so V1 can show up with AA/KK/AK, 99, and maybe A5hh, or occasionally A9. He might x/r the flop with AA and see MUB when the K hits the turn.

Oh no! I now lose to 99 and KK!!!

I think the worst thing you can do here is jam. V1 never calls with worse.

too weak of a raise pre and post. I don't play much 1/3 anymore but I would have gone at least $45 or $50 pre and c bet for at least 75$ or jam if you just want to take it down or charge the draw.

If I open-jam the flop, it's pretty certain that V1 isn't calling unless I'm toast.

Kind of surprised by the diversity in thought on this one.

We can quibble over the 3B size pre, but 3x IP is pretty standard. Hard to hate on OP's 3.5x size.

OP bet 30% pot in a 3BP, multi-way, with an over-pair, but on a pretty wet and dynamic board that doesn't smash his 3B'ing range. That also seems pretty standard.

What reads do we have that make us want to start hard-exploiting these guys with huge 3B's and huge flop bets?

If we're just trying to take pots down pre or on the flop, that can't be the right way to max out our win rate.

OP played it pretty textbook, up until V1's x/r. That's the point where what we should do next seems worth debate.

At SPR 4 we can just gii over the flop check raise.

Yes but that would be okay if you had bet larger pre because at least you take down some value from the hand you. Its not like it doesn't all get in with a flop like this and the action pre. unless the turn is another heart, but it wasn't yes the K sucks but it's doubtful he has that either. You need to charge the draws hard you kno?

Text book isn't really the proper way to play anymore if your playing too by the book your not keeping your V's guessing and printing money as much.

Prefllop can be fine ... depends on our ranges. I wouldn't be happy to call much more than 35 with JJ as V, but lots of others do and your read suggests he is one so might as well go bigger as an exploit.
Worth knowing if V1 is always opening to 10 or limping sometimes too?

On flop is also whatever, they both have all the sets and we have none and everyone assumes we always have AK.
If V1 has even half a clue then often betting big is the worst play (and maybe the best with any AK you aren't folding).

I'd be very tempted to check and let V2 bet whatever he has and then see how V1 reacts to that, the main problem is V1 might still decide to x/r V2's bet with JJ/TT for value assuming we always have AK so even if it goes: V2 shoves; V1 reshoves ... we might have to sigh call it off.

In general I dislike flop 3bets, esp. at low SPRs ... it just looks too nutted if V1 has even 10% of a clue.

As played on the turn, I don't see V1 doing this (with reads) with 99 so we are almost certainly good but he's now afraid AK just got there so he's probably not putting much more money in. Bet 3rd pot again, or shove to charge hearts (we unblock both FDs).

Ugh, somehow didn't notice V2 has 90 left on the turn ... meh. Bet 90 for a dry side pot, or bet 150 for non-dry I guess. Check through would be weird. Check, V2 bets, and we raise looks more nutted than shoving. Check, V2 bets, and we overcall might be cute and good for us on a few rivers.

I'll bet 45 and see how they both react. And go from there.

This is not a wet board for a 3bet pot. you and I have very different definitions of wet.

I just don't see what a flop 3bet achieves. V2 "dribbles away chips" but is he that clueless when the action goes check-raise, bet, call, check-raise, shove, that he's going to call it off with worse (apart from maybe JJ and TT)? And similarly apart from AQhh, AJhh and AThh what hands are we hoping for V1 to have that will call off a jam? Both these players have 99, they shouldn't have 55 or 33 but who knows.

EDIT...just thinking about it a little more, both players have a lot of JJ/TT and nut flush draws which can call and you're not so bothered about the low-equity random KJcc etc folding, so for this SPR I could actually be on board.

Again I'm not sure what we're trying to achieve by betting the turn apart from "cos good card". Multiway with a SDV hand against weak players that would seem to be pretty low down the list of priorities. Check it back, based on what happens behind you you can make a decision.

GRUNCH:
Sometimes in 3-bet pots that go multiway you'll have an overpair on a fairly safe board, but it will still be somewhat uncomfortable to face a raise from a villain who definitely has all the sets and (some)two-pair in their range, whilst we don't really know if they'd raise their draws or vulnerable overpairs or so on.

Fortunately for you, this is not (really) one of those times!
The BTN cold call is heavily weighted towards TT-JJ/AK/AQ, and perhaps some medium to small pocket pairs but hardly ever KK+
As for UTG, it would be useful to know more about how he resopnds to 3-bets, and just how 'loose' he is pre and/or post.
Regardless, you don't need to worry about KK+, and the threat of flopped sets is significantly diminished due to the action. Comfortably shove over the flop x/raise, and make a note if a V shows up with something unexpected.

Also, I would bet more in the range of 50-70 on the flop, but as played it worked out for you with V1's x/raise.

Preflop is a population exploit, no reads needed. It's 1/3 — an open to $10 is smaller than standard in most 1/3 games, and even if it IS standard in this one, making it 40-50 instead of 35 gets more value from inelastic calling ranges, while also discouraging cold-callers, making an easy heads-up pot more likely.

Post-flop I agree — I'd personally c-bet a bit larager but around 1/3 pot is probably pretty standard.

Im reraising flop small, like $150, this is JJ TT all day.

Fondling - Is this Gate City? Is V1 a particular Asian 'maniac/whale'?

It's two-tone, and 9-high. Top pair is very likely to change. Lots of cards complete potential draws.

Why min-click it though? I agree that V has a lot of JJ/TT in his range, but I wonder if V sees the min-click and decides we have a lot of QQ+, and not much else. If we go bigger, conceivably we could have some bluffs, no?

Fair enough, I suppose. It just seems like we'd be making it easier for our opponents by splitting our ranges and betting/raising bigger with our big PP's. That's exactly the sort of leak decent players look for, so they can exploit us.

Depends on the game. The goal we are trying to achieve with a 3! is to isolate one opponent and get them to call with a number of hands that are worse than ours or that we can outplay postflop. When we are IP, we are likely to overrealize our equity postflop, and OOP we underrealize. So if we are IP on the preflop raiser, we generally want to 3! smaller because we want them to call wider since we have the advantage. If we 3! and V folds QJs, that's a disaster with our hand. Especially since he is "too loose" and prone to overchasing. We really want this guy to see a flop where he might make a 100bb+ mistake. We don't want him to fold scs that are likely to hit just enough to keep him in. So we need to find the size that V is going to call with almost all of his opening range.

OP stated that he ran up $100 mostly by 3-betting pre, which implies to me that people were frequently folding to his 3!s. If people are folding frequently, then you want to 3! smaller, especially when you are IP and especially why you have a hand that really wants a call. Taking down the $13 in the pot is a horrible result for us with this specific hand. OP has been sitting for awhile, and has apparently been 3! fairly regularly, so probably has a good sense of how the table is responding to his 3!s right now. It seems a bit presumptious to second-guess the size, which is well within the realm of reasonable ranges. Table energy trumps "population reads", and certainly player specific reads trump population reads. Population reads are only useful when you first sit down and you don't know what's happening at the table yet. Against a V prone to splashing around too much, we want him in there with his random trash. We don't want to bet so big that he easily folds QJo, 54s, or whatever other trash he might have in his range. We want him to feel "priced in" to play bingo.