How often do we drop the hammer here?

The vibe might be that she does not like things but the facts are she called a pot size bet on turn, the river changed nothing, and you can only make a pot size bluff.. In addition the front door flush draw missed which encourages calls.

Interesting one.

I think the turn is pretty important here. I think I might have bet smaller, as you are still charging draws and denying equity to a hand like KQ that got sticky. If she is passive enough to have something like AQ that might fold too.

This larger bet might clear out some hands like 33-66. These are the hands you'd like to fold out with a river shove, but they might have folded already.

Unless she limp calls AKs or AQs we tie AJs and beat all other FDs unless they paired up. If you're read on turn is right, it's pretty unlikely she has either a 2 or a 7 + FD as those are pretty comfortable. So it's really just the 5.

So, I think you can check the river unless you are quite convinced that V will call 2 streets with an 8 or 66 and then fold the river.

You described her as "loose passive". Does she have a fold button?

In general in low stakes, we don't make our money with big bluffs especially on unknowns, and especially ones where our limited data set says loose passive

On the turn, I prefer about 75 or check. Then you can barrel the river if you want without having to shove. Don't see the point of potting it against loose/passive fish as a bluff.

If someone is going to stack off with a pair here, you make your money when you have a big pair or a set here. No point in pure bluffing for stacks.

Live reads in this spot are going have mixed signals. Maybe she has 99 and doesn’t like the spot.

Going off the poker she called a big bet on the turn and nothing changed.

I would check back turn, this board is too good for 66 or an 8.

Welcome to the forum, OP.

I have found low-stakes Vs to be huge non-believers on paired flops, and have pretty much given up c-betting them with overs. If I had c-bet and got called, vs a "typical loose passive fish" I like either giving up OTT or betting smaller to make it look like value town. PSB is way too big, imo.

River is a blank. She's not folding any pairs that got here, and you beat most of her FDs. I check back.

Only betting turn if it's a ♥. Wouldn't bet this much even then (it's not actually pot, but it's still big -- please put pot sizes in HH).

What position are we in? I would only raise in LP and otherwise limp/evaluate but that's my style.

Against two people described as fish / loose / passive (which I typically read as calling stationish), I think putting any money in postflop UI (especially on non scary cards that aren't supposed to hit us) is setting money on fire.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Flop looks good - just check behind on the turn. First off you might have the best hand if they're chasing spades, this player is labeled loose/passive meaning she's going to call down lighter than she should, and if she has say 99 I think you're burning money. This is a spot where you bet the flop getting a great price to take it down and protect equity, or you're going to bet the turn and river everytime. The problem with the turn/river bluff is it needs to work a TON given you need to bet both streets and it won't.

OP - in the future, it's helpful for the rest of us if you put the pot size on each street, so we don't have to math it out.

Grunch (haven't read anything past the OP):

PRE - What position is hero in? Be careful not to get too raise-happy with suited aces in limp-happy low-stakes games. They're not limping to fold, and a lot of our not-all-that-strong suited aces don't play all that well post-flop when facing sticky opponents.

FLOP - This is what I mean. We have two overs and a BDFD in a three-way pot against UTG defending their straddle with what might be a super-wide range, and UTG1 LP Asian lady who hasn't folded any pair or NFD in this spot since the Obama administration.

I'm not saying I hate the 1/3 pot c-bet when action checks to us, but I don't exactly love it. It seems sort of standard against the population, but in sticky games, I might play pot control by checking back and taking a free card. If action checks to us again on the turn, then we can bomb it.

TURN - In theory, sizing up with your barrel is fine, and should fold out everything that isn't trips or better, or a draw to the nuts. But in reality, loose-passive Asian lady didn't drive all the way to the casino to fold 55, 66, or 99 here, at least not when you bet less than full pot.

If you really want her to fold, you need to over-bet here. That would be more comfortable and cost us less if we checked back the flop.

I wouldn't read too much into her "physical vibe". That could be an act. I learned the hard way that "why so much" is usually strong, not weak.

RIVER - Meh. This is also what I mean. Maybe we have some showdown value here, and don't need to keep bluffing, but I'd be sick to my stomach if she has a better hand that would have folded if we bet. I'll be equally sick if we jam and she calls with something that would have folded if we checked back the flop and bombed the turn.

Look, in theory, AJs is a raise pre, a range bet on the flop, a turn barrel, and a river jam. In reality, it's just an unnecessary punt in low-stakes games where people can't seem to find the fold button with their showdown value.

Flop bet at least 75
You have to continue the story that you have a big pocket pair & the flop is good for you. Then you can consider a free card (checking back the turn) if you don’t improve.

I have played with this exact type of villain and you need to wait for a heavily favored hand, and then drag her to the river. She will go broke soon, but this is exactly the type of board she will win often showing up with J8 or 76

Even though she’s very unlikely to check-raise the river, I don’t think taking a stab will work. She might have given you a fake vibe and had a two all along, just hoping you will bet.

As played, I just can’t see how she can call your turn bet with a worse hand. That one turn call makes me think she won’t ever fold now. Would she really call down with hands you beat like KJ or AT?

I think xback since our Ax has decent showdown vs flush draws. (and it's not clear our bluff has enough fold equity)

Think about your range.
Yes, you have TT+ and some NFD ... but what else? Even this hand is above average as it's A high and has BDNF. If you want to bluff, you'll generally want to pick worse hands.
Maybe you even have 88, but then that doesn't really want to play to get folds.

Then think about their range, yes they have random 2x (almost for sure A2s/22) and 88 ... but a lot of stuff like KQ/QJ/T9s or even A7 that is drawing really thin and doesn't have to think for even half a second when we bomb it for 75 into 90.

Then if only one person calls it'll be ~240 on the turn and 485 behind, which is a pretty bad turn SPR unless we had AA and a read that we're good planning to shove and deny draws equity.

Also if you bomb flop and check back turn ... it's now a much bigger pot and it's difficult for us to have a hand that can call on most rivers.

I would default to betting 25/30 or checking with AA/KK here, and the rest of my range would follow into those two lines because I'm not sure I'm good enough to have multiple sizes on this board.

^Yes. Emphatic agreement on the highlighted portion, combined with mild annoyance I didn't think of this myself.

It's not only that we want to bluff with worse hands than the one we have. I think it's that we want to bluff with hands that can barrel on a lot of turns, balanced with hands that are just pure crap and don't put us in the spot of trying to figure out if we have enough showdown value to check back on the river, and some hands with just a smidge more showdown value for the times we run into a better ace-high.

Like, I'd rather have something like 76hh here. On the turn we can pick up a straight draw or flush draw, or both, and we know 7-high isn't going to win any beauty contests when the curtain gets pulled back. We know even if we make a pair it's kinda meh, so our mission is to make a real hand or bluff them out of their shoes.

I'd rather have 55 here. If we can make V fold 66 or 99 by barreling off, awesome. But if not, at least we have a pair at showdown if we give up and check back. At least 55 doesn't lose to AK/AQ. Take that, AJs!

AJs looks pretty pre, but when we miss post-flop, it's just too in-between to feel good doing anything with it. It's got just enough showdown to make us think MAYBE we can win if we check back, but not enough to completely banish the thought of barreling off. I suspect part of it is that checking back on the river with AK is less "embarrassing" than checking back with AJs, and having everyone discover (gasp!) that we raised pre with AJs.

Result: we check, she shows 33

I think it's a mistake to be results oriented here, and say she probably would have folded if we barreled off. Yes, maybe she would have, but if her range includes every 1P hand from 33 up to JJ, how much of that range folds to a river barrel?

Maybe ONLY 33 and 44, or possibly 33, 44, and 66. She's probably not folding 99-JJ, and maybe not 8x or 7x. She's obviously not folding trips or better. Maybe she folds AK/AQ often enough, assuming she's open limping with them.

That's the problem with trying to play a theoretically correct range / strat against sticky low-stakes recs. The portion of their range that will fold will typically ONLY fold to a triple-barrel and/or huge bet sizing, and that portion of their range is much smaller than the portion that just shrug-calls the whole way and wins at showdown.

If we roll the tape back, suppose we just flat called pre - she's not betting her hand for value at any point, and we can realize our equity for minimum cost. Suppose we raise pre and check back the flop - she's not leading turn. We can check back again and take a free card, or we can start a delayed bluff with a big over-bet.

Even if she had some stronger hand - she's probably not betting worse than 99 for value on the flop, and maybe not even 99. We get to realize a ton when we just check back rather than start bluffing on early streets.

They're just trying to get to showdown with their PP's. They're not "shot-taking" at low stakes. They're playing for fun, with fun-money they don't mind losing, but they hate folding.

Part of their reasoning is they hate being bluffed, and they think their opponents are always trying to bluff them. We're just reinforcing that when we raise pre, c-bet the flop, barrel turn, and give up on the river with ace-high.

They're not embarrassed when they make bad calls and lose. They feel smug satisfaction when they bluff-catch with 33 and are proven right. Just value-bet them to death, knowing they over-call and under-fold.

I appreciate you guys so much
I struggle to use bad hands to bluff when that’s often exactly what I need to do.

I like your ideas it’s just when I see a guy betting the same bet on the flop as preflop, it usually means one of two things:
Villain has a small pair tapping along
Or
Villain is slow-playing a monster

But it was too good a hand to bluff & if I don’t get the fold, I don’t know where I am on the turn. This is certainly similar to playing AK on the little board.

Well said, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Not having a bluffing hand was not considered and you’re so right, I’ve got to consider winning unimproved in my thought process instead of just overpowering them with aggression.

IMO the exact hand for bluffing is less important here than choosing the frequency for bluffing. I have found if weak sticky player starts calling you need to put down a fortune to stop them - which means we should really reduce our frequency of hitting the "overpower with aggression" button.