2/5 line check/thoughts -- TP medium kicker IP multiway

I'd play it pretty much the same.

I think betting this kind of flop with top pair and nothing is generally bad, would even be whatever if flop was AJT ... but in general the hearts and the 9 never help us on runouts, we can be crushed, can get bluffed a decent amount from worse and we only have like 60% vs. A2s.

If it's an exploit because you "know" V will act as you want, it's whatever.

razor thin. I'm checking flop through but betting small is ok at this table I guess. Turn I check back or go massive.

Seems like villain as described will have AQ, AJ, some ATs, and pair+str8 draw combos. I certainly would not bet river (unless it's a bluff, and bet big) but turn could go either way depending on how many AT+ combos they could have vs the others (i.e. do they play offsuit small bways)?

This is actually pretty interesting, and really bizarre. I mean the flop and turn bets are clearly for value — we want him to raise his two pair+ to let us know we're behind, and call all his Ax, FD's, pair+SD's. Idk, do we really want to bomb the river just to fold out AJ, and maybe A8 or A4 which will proooobably fold. It's kind of a sick move, but if we're wrong about our read it could be pretty awful too.

I understand you think you were betting flop and turn for value, but read the other comments in this thread, and re-read mine. Most aren't sure we should be value-betting this flop, and I'm curious what range you were targeting with your bet, and what range you think continues?

I'm not sure 2P raises the flop, because what 2P does he have? Not AK, so maybe AT or KT. But AT and KT may not raise on AKT. That's why I said we're in no man's land on the 8c. It adds another flush draw, and so we want to bet before an action killing-river, but we can't be certain we're ahead.

We don't really want to keep betting turn, but we don't really want to NOT bet turn, either. So, we bet again, for a little less than 1/2 pot, and V calls again. At this point it looks like V is on a draw, or he has a hand that is better than ours, yet not strong enough to raise.

On the river, we lose to those better hands if we just check back, so we have to continue betting. But I don't think we can get value from worse hands if we bet again, so we're mostly betting to fold out hands like AQ and AJ.

The only A4 combo I think he might have here is A4cc. The only A8 is A8dd. But V could have all the AQo and AJ combos, plus some AT and KT. I think we're mostly betting to fold out AQ and AJ, but maybe occasionally KT, A8 and A4 will also fold.

If you check back the river with A9 because you think it has showdown value, and you lose to a hand that was ahead the whole way, that's why we should have checked-back or bet smaller on the flop, rather than betting a weak top pair into three opponents.

There's a distinction between a flop where we shouldn't be betting (in general, in theory, most of the time and maybe even this time in practice), and a flop/hand where a bet functionas as a bluff. Is this, generally, a bad flop/spot for us to bet A9? Yes. But vs weak, passive opponents, this can change. In this case we're almost certainly getting called (on flop) by all Ax, and all pair+straight-draws, while losing to straights, two-pair (AK/AT/KT), and AQ/AJ. As least some of the 2p+ will be raising — possibly a great deal of the two pair in particular because people are afraid of seeing a K or Q putting a 4-liner to a straight out there.

Probably more importantly, though — my understanding is that the main reason it's bad to bet this flop isn't because we're very often behind, but because our opponents have tons of hands with good EQ that can raise and apply a ton of pressure to precisely the kind of hand we actually have. If they're not raising enough, we can get away with betting much more thinly.

We always lose to better hands when we check back the river — and sometimes we lose. It doesn't mean we have to bet. If a V's range is — to make up an unrealistic example — 9 combos of sets and 1 combo of top pair, we're obviously not going to bet our two-pair so we can fold out the top pair and avoid losing at showdown.

But also an alternative consideration here — if our read is hypothetically strong enough that we're confident V both:
1. Has AQ/AJ in his range, and will fold them
2. Doesn't have enough slowplayed 2-pair+ that will call or raise to discourage us from betting to fold out the above hands.

then our read should also be strong enough to (possibly) go for thin value on flop and/or turn if we think V has a wide range that will not fold enough weak Ax and pair+draw type hands.

I still think it's close

Fully agree.

Not sure I follow your logic. I'm just looking at the action.

Was V in UTG or LJ? Your OP said LJ, but you had BB and UTG call pre, and then on the flop, you've only got one other opponent folding before V calls, suggesting he was actually UTG, where his open limp-calling range should be stronger.

Your read is that he's tight and competent, but not overly aggro. He limp-called pre, called your slightly larger c-bet, and called your turn barrel. It's hard to think he's getting to the river with worse AX.

Again, what sort of range are you giving V when he calls flop? Do you think a tight competent V is limp-calling pre with A7 or worse AX? I'd be giving him a range of draws to the nuts and better hands for value. But what draw combos does he have that aren't at least one pair?

Like, he can have all the AQ, AJ, KQ, and KJ, plus QT and JT. But it seems like he'd fold all his worse combos of KQ/KJ/QT/JT on the turn, unless he already had or picked up a flush draw.

If he's folding all those KX, QX and TX combos without a flush draw, then he only has four combos of KQss, KJss, QTcc, and JTcc that we beat if we check back. Meanwhile, he might have all 16 combos of AQ and AJ.

If he's tight and competent, he'll have a hard time calling off a 1.5x-2x pot river bet with AQ or AJ, especially if his hand includes the Ac, Qs, Qc, Js, or Jc, cutting down on our missed flush draw combos.

That's twelve of his AQ and AJ combos that should be over-folding. He's only got four combos of AQdd, AdQh, AJdd or AdJh that might make a stubborn call.

If his range is 16 combos of AQ / AJ, and 4 combos of KQ, KJ, QT, and JT, we lose 80% of the time when we check back. If we over-bet, we should be folding out 12 of those AQ / AJ combos, leaving him four combos we beat, and four we don't, making betting higher EV than checking back.

If he over-folds, meaning he doesn't always call with all four of those remaining AQ / AJ combos with no spade or club, then our over-bet is going to be much higher EV than checking back.

I'd expect a tight-competent opponent to over-fold AQ/AJ to an over-bet on this run-out, when we can have all the better hands on the flop - QJ, AA, KK, TT, KT, and AT.

I'd think QJ raises flop or turn, unless he has exactly QJss or QJcc, which is just two combos. If he doesn't have QJ, then his value range is either 2P that unblocks us from having QJ, or 1P with a Q or a J that does block us from having QJ, but doesn't block any of our better combos of AX or better.

I just think it's hard for him to show up on the river with a hand that's strong enough to call an over-bet, or a hand that we beat if we check back. Most of his range is made up of better hands that will fold if we over-bet.

Lastly, this part of your OP seems contradictory, or at least at odds with how you played this hand:

"..the table was passive enough that I didn't think getting raised and potentially bluffed off my top pair was too likely. Sometimes I get in trouble going too thin, or too wide, and regret it when I get raised, but this just isn't too likely at this table right now.

Also, I can obviously get value from all kinds of worse hands. People will call here much wider than they will bet (then turn, should I check), and a x/call or x/raise from an opponent are each much more informative than when they just lead the turn after the PFR checks back."

If it's unlikely you'll get raised as a bluff, it doesn't necessarily follow that you'll get raised by better value. Passive V's who don't raise with bluffs don't raise as often with value.

If you can get value from worse hands, and people call too wide, then you should bet. But you say V is tight and competent. If he's tight and competent, he shouldn't be calling too wide.

We can always bet more often, and often bigger, if we aren't going to get raised much ... but I still wouldn't bet A9 no-FD on the flop.

AQ/AJ/KQ/KJ and even KT or QJ will often just x/c a lot when we bet, and as I said we are only 60% vs. A2s. So we have no idea where we are on almost all runouts when we bet, and Vs will have a much better idea.
Which means not only do I not want to get raised, I'm not thrilled about a flop call either unless Vs are just terrible x/c'ing any Q or J (and I mean like Q5s, not QT). And if they are calling that wide, I'd still probably prefer to bet almost everything except weak top pair.

Then we have to think about ranges a little bit... if we bet A9 here what aren't we betting that can call a small bet, KQ/KJ?

What's the reveal? Did this line work out, or no?

I agree it's not great, but what's the alternative? If we check back the flop and face a turn bet from any of our 3 opponents — not to mention a bet and a call — we really have no idea where we're at. There are a ton of terrible turn cards, and with 3 opponents with pretty wide ranges that will still be in the hand...
Are we ok with just giving up on the turn a lot of the time? Or sticking around planning to give up a lot on the river?

- He was LJ, the error was in the reported flop action

- It seems like different interpretations of comptent/tight are at play — and competent/tight probably does give the wrong impression. He is not playing a TAG strategy by any means, and his competence is relative to total fish; he has some ability to figure out where he's at and doesn't just punt off his stack in ridiculous ways. He's not call preflop with trash like Kx offsuit, but he's still calling all suited Ax, suited connectors, some suited gappers, and some amount of Ax offsuit, but not all. All pocket pairs, etc., and not 3-betting much. Postflop he's not overvaluing his hand TOO much, but he'll still call too wide in certain spots, and especially combo draws. I think most rec's have a terribly hard time folding combo draws of any kind.

Even so I think you're making slightly too many assumptions, about how an relatively unknown villain will be playing every relevant hand class — even if we do assume "tight/comptenet" means what you reasonably interpreted it as meaning.

What worse Ax combos get to the river? This seems more like pair + a draw to me.

My guess about Ax being more likely than pair+draw was regarding his behavior when he saw my hand and mucked. A very tenuous guess, and not actually useful or worth anything, but it's what I thought. I was already assuming at that point that when he mucks his range is, indeed, worse Ax and missed pair+draws.

As for what Ax combos get to the river — how can we just rule them out as though folding all his Ax to the turn bet has a high expectation of being V's response to the barrel? What are his tendencies when it comes to playing TP bad kicker in general? We have no idea. How does he view hero? I didn't mention this in the post — but even if we don't know it's still pretty likely to be relevant to V's decision-making.

Your read was that he was competent and tight.

First off, he limp-called pre. Simply looking at that, I question how competent and tight he is. But assuming he is competent and tight, what sort of range can we give him when he A) limp-calls pre, B) check-calls flop, C) check-calls turn, and D) checks river?

AQ and AJ make some sense to limp-call, and then check-call flop and turn on AKT8 two-tone. But what worse AX makes sense? A7? A2?

If he's competent and tight, or just remotely competent, all his worse AX should either raise pre, or don't limp-call, and they don't continue to check-call on AKT8.

A7 and worse AX are just easy and instant mucks when we c-bet flop and barrel turn, especially if he's remotely tight or remotely competent. Even if he spikes a 7 on the river, he still loses to QJ, AA, KK, TT, AK, AT, and A8. All his worse AX combos are drawing super-slim at best, and could be drawing dead.

The only range that makes any sense on the river is slow-played QJ, better AX, and pair + draws. This is why I was advocating for a river over-bet. The number of QJ combos and pair + draw combos that get to the river this way is much lower than the number of better AX combos that get to the river this way.

We don't even need to think about how he plays anything in his range. We can just count the available combos of AQ/AJ and the number of pair + draw combos, and see that his range is dominated by better AX.

Assuming he does have some worse AX in his range, all the more reason to bet. Because if he gets to the river with worse AX, he's not tight or competent, and probably thinks his AX is good, so we can bet for value, and hope worse AX makes a hero call.