1/2, $1k deep: Line check with bottom boat

I think the only thing you did wrong was the Preflop flat; it's probably not +EV to put in 10.5 BB with a small pair. If you had 88 sure, but these small pairs all have RIO because you can get it in set over set.

Flop I play the same way; I'm not fast-playing just because there are two hearts. Gotta take risks if you want to win big.

I wouldn't have ruled out Kx from the BN here and if BN can have Kx, this could be a spot to bet something like 500$ on the River. But if you are confident he has no Kx, then it seems like he has nothing to pay you with (except exactly JT which is not likely), so just check and induce a bluff.

I'd go for the C/R here. Let him bet his K's and straights and a few bluffs mixed in.

Pre looks like a huge punt. It doesn't even matter if you have the only pair a lot.

Flop you kind of have to raise, esp. for this size. There are a bunch of draws and you unblock everything that continues with a hand you should never have. Again, after calling 25 pre. you _need_ to get 250 of other people's money in the pot just to break even.

Turn size is also weird, it's like you are trying to make the preflop call worse. On the upside it's fine to get calls from draws.

River is whatever, if V has any clue at all he might bet small or even check back with JT. But if you bet big he's not folding.

If he's going to bluff missed hearts/whatever a lot though you kind of need to bet small or check.

Your read seems sus ... don't see why he can't have KQ/K9 and depending on what he thinks of you and your sizes maybe 99.

Given your reads, I'd size up on the turn. Aggrofish will likely call any size bet with a draw or Kx

Although SB still has some nutted hands, there really aren't too many combos of them so I'm not too scared of betting when checked-to on the turn.

River is interesting. Based on your reads, you're likely good here almost always. Maybe he backed into a better boat with 99 based on your turn bet sizing. But that's about it.

If he's limp/calling JTo but raising JTs, there's 12 combos that will call a big river bet. They also will likely bet big if checked to. Could be at least as many combos of busted FDs too.

I think I check, planning to raise river. How much depends on his bet size. I'd be willing to check/jam and if he has 99, so be it.

[Edit: I guess he could get here with K9 too. If he CK/calls pre with any K9, then that's 6 more combos you lose to. But if only K9s, then only 1 more combo (K9dd) based on board.]

Grunch:

PRE - depending on our read of SB, and with two players behind us, I might just fold 44 to a 12x raise.

FLOP - I think we can raise here. Our hand is often best, but pretty vulnerable.

TURN - think we can just check to let the aggro fish on the BTN start a bluff. We don't really mind letting a free card roll off, and our hand will be really well disguised getting to the river. BTN could easily have a better boat here.

RIVER - as played, when BTN doesn't raise turn, I think we can either make a slight over-bet to get called by Kx, or we can check to let him bluff with his missed draws or JT that got there.

Mostly prefer to just bet, not check, but it depends on how often we think BTN is going to bluff. If he's the type who can't stop himself from betting when action checks to him, and he bluffs big, I might chance it with a check.

Gonna push back on this. (I think winning players don't slowplay enough in soft games.)

Suppose OP's read is wrong and Villain has, say, K♦8♦ here.

If we play your line, we make it 100-130$ on the Flop, almost certainly BN will fold, SB folds as well, we win 110$ minus rake.
If we call the Flop and play Turn as is (though I wouldn't mind a larger Turn bet), we can bet 400$ on this River. K♦8♦ will call us. We win 585$ minus rake.

I think the call pre to set mine is fine given its 1k effective - yeh you have some RIO against a better set, but it's pretty rare to have set over set. On the flop you have to raise especially against his sizing. Your turn sizing needs to be larger as well. If you're confident he raises Kx+ OTT then just check the river and bluffcatch.

Another problem with set mining here with a crappy PP is that we have the worst relative position to the pre-flop raiser.

If the OP's read is wrong...in what way would it be wrong? If the read is that BTN is loose-aggro, then the alternative is he isn't loose-aggro?

If that's the supposition, then he's probably not over-calling with K8s pre, nor over-calling with K8s on the flop if we just flat. He's mostly just going to fold all his KX that doesn't have something else going on, like some sort of draw, or at least a better kicker.

Illiterat is right - we shouldn't have 44 here, and we unblock all the worse hands we want our opponents to have. When SB bets 1/3 pot, if we don't raise with bottom set, what hands are we raising?

I'm not sure what you mean by "winning players don't slowplay enough in soft games." Slow-playing isn't often the best way to maximize value. It wouldn't seem to be when we have a hand that is strong, yet unlikely to show up, and also unlikely to improve, and the board is draw-heavy.

This is a spot where we should play our hand hyper-fast, not slow. It's not horrible if our raise folds out some hands that have equity to improve to a hand that beats ours, especially when we're OOP.

We have three opponents on the flop. The ranges here are likely to include KX, some 2P, and a fair number of draws. We kind of want to funnel opponents into a range that is weighted towards made hands we beat, not give them a good price to draw to a hand that beats us.

Look at it this way - which hand is V more likely to have, K8s, or K9s? They're not that much different, but K8s has very little chance of showing up and wanting to continue, because it's so hard to improve, whereas K9s is going to feature more in our opponents' ranges pre and post.

no not with the general player type, just with the specific claim that "BTN always raises Kx on the turn". This doesn't follow from the player type imo, and was OP's justification for ruling out Kx, which doesn't strike me as super convincing.

Really? Imo there's a ~0% chance that a fish of any kind folds top pair to the first 1/3 Pot bet. Any King will ~always continue here.

Honest answer: I think K8s is about 1,33x as likely as K9s because there's a 9 on the board (so there's four 8s vs. three 9s), and nothing about how the hand went down provides us with any information. Both K9s and K8s can be in this hand, both of them are never folding on the Flop, and both of them are equally likely to raise the Turn. Maybe K9s is a tiny bit more likely to limp behind Preflop, but I'd expect both of them to limp behind, so it seems pretty negligible.

But it's not like there's only K9s and K8s; every suited King is possible here, and there are a lot more suited Kings that don't have a boat than that do have a boat.

I could probably list some hands, but the real answer is, it doesn't matter, you don't have to balance in a weak game, it doesn't matter whether we have any other hands we raise here or not.

I mean what I said, I think otherwise strong players have it in their head that they "need" to raise on everything but the most dry flops, when often just calling is potentially a lot more profitable, like here. It has significant risks, I don't think it's a clear-cut choice at all, but it also has significant upside. And we don't "need" to do anything, there is no rule that says we must raise a set if there's a flush possible.

Okay...I agree with you about OP's read that V always raises KX on the turn could easily be wrong. I don't think V is always going to raise turn with all his KX, especially not if he somehow shows up with some oddball trashy KX combo.

But you may have missed my point that the BTN doesn't get to the flop with a lot of KXs in his range, when he limps in pre, and then over-calls a huge raise from the SB. Some of his KXs is surely going to get raised pre or folded out pre.

The portion of KXs which remains is likely to be middling - he's unlikely to be limp-calling with AK/KQs, or K2-K8. It's mostly going to be K9-KJ, often offsuit combos that he didn't think were strong enough to raise when action was on him the first time, which just isn't that many combos.

But, assuming he does have K9-KJ, or any combo of KX that limp-calls pre, and now sees the PFR c-bet for 1/3 pot into multiple opponents, and gets a call from the player next to act, on KQ4 two-tone. How many of those KX combos are likely to continue as an over-call, when he just has a weakish top pair, no kicker, his 2P outs may not be any good, and he has no draw?

Your supposition is that V isn't folding KX here. Mine is that he doesn't get here with much KX, and there's even less KX that over-calls the flop c-bet. I said in my first reply that BTN could easily have a better boat, but I meant SB, not BTN, when the SB c-bets the flop but checks the K turn. BTN should never have a boat here, in this line.

You're looking at the 9 on the river, but my question is about the pre-flop and flop continue ranges. K9 can at least make a straight. K8 can't make $hlt but a sketchy 2P. I'd rather play K6s than K8s, simply for the IO of making a higher straight against someone playing ace-wheel suited.

When the BTN limps in pre, sure, maybe K8s is in his range, but when he over-calls the big raise, I think K8 shows up less often than K9-KJ.

I don't think every suited KX is possible here (and not simply because there are two kings on board, eliminating a huge number of KXs combos). The good suited KX combos are likely to get raised pre. The trashy KX are likely to get folded the first time, or if not, likely the second time.

It seems more likely BTN has JT, or a busted flush draw with QX than KX.

It's hard to construct a raising range here if we're not raising bottom set, and we won't have top or middle set. And not raising with bottom set on this board just seems like it would fall into the category Bart Hanson has labeled a "reverse equity slow-play" - we're letting our opponents out-draw us for free or cheap when we have a strong yet very vulnerable hand.

There are tons of hand we can get value from on the flop. There aren't nearly as many on the turn or river.

I like calling next-to-act on the flop to build a pot. Yes, the flush can get there but we have the redraw and most of the time it doesn't and now we have a nice pot on the turn. I don't necessarily think we need a raising range in that spot, although 2p seems like a better place to start.

I prefer going for a check-raise on the turn once we boat up. If it checks through, a big overbet on the river aligns nicely with a missed draw (brick) or to get looked up by a flush. Definitely don't like the small size; if we have to bet, go big targeting Kx.

The reads basically state that we have to check the river, although I'm a little skeptical of what is essentially a claim that V never has anything worth calling here. LLSNL players don't raise very often and BTN was facing a bet both streets. But I hate getting to the river like this, so all options are pretty meh.

Strong players know that wet boards mean that not only can you have a bunch of strong draws as "balance" but that people are more likely to call a raise here than on K84r.

Also wet boards don't always run out dry, so we can lose (or not know where we are) but also people can fold K8 when the 2h hits the turn.

On the side of just calling:

SB is the only person we have position on and he is betting, so if we call it's not like it might check through on a brick turn.

BTN is tagged agrofish, so if we just call a small flop bet he's more likely to raise to squeeze us.

On the other side:

Any A♥ or 9♥ kills all the action on the turn, even from us (about 5% of the time).

A lot of the hands that almost certainly fold flop raises are things like red 7s, and yeh they only hit the turn 5% but we don't know which bricks are in that 5%.

Any non-Q heart means we have to be careful (~16% of the time)

Any KQ or ♥ heavily discourages either V putting money in with JT (call it 25% of the time).

Any AQJT9 or ♥ heavily discourages either V putting money in with K8 or whatever (like 46% of the time).

Even on a turn brick, if SB checks we have to bet without strong reads BTN will do something ... and unlike on the turn K we are discouraged from making the price to draw cheap. This looks stronger than raising flop, because all draws are worth much less now. Esp. if we do see something and x/r turn. Maybe Vs are so bad this doesn't matter ... but, if true, why not just raise flop and they'll call a street earlier.

In general raising and getting folds from Kx is amazing, as long as they don't magically fold here and call when we have a draw. Saying that, IME people playing wide/agro. 1k deep aren't folding top pair on the flop much, if ever.

(Very reasonable reply overall, I appreciate it.)

I just think you're probably giving this guy too much credit. He limped behind on the BN and then called a 12.5BB raise, so we basically know he's bad; there's almost no hand that makes this play reasonable. Which is also OP's read (like that he's a fish). ImE bad players limp-call all sorts of things if they have an excuse, and in this case he has two excuses that aren't even wrong (he's best position and CO also called.) (I mean they're "not wrong" in the sense that they make the call with a suited king less bad; I think it's still -EV.) So yeah I just don't think that if I see K2s here, I'm even surprised. I've seen people limp-call with worse hands, especially multiway. Everyone seems to think that if the person before them called, they also have to call. (And is he really going to think about the one straight that K9s can make but K8s can't? I kinda doubt it. Maybe a small difference, but not much. They're suited kings; he just wants to make a flush.)

I do agree that KQs+ are unlikely because they would have raised initially, probably also KJs. But yeah overall, I still think all KTs- (i.e.,everything < T) have a decent chance to make it to Flop, and all of them have >90% to make it to the Turn once they made it to the Flop.

That makes a lot more sense, and yeah, I mean I agree SB can have better boats, and that you can get into trouble against them that could be avoided by raising Flop.

This is one of the more important points, and I kinda disagree that a set is "very vulnerable". It loses to flushes and straights if the board is not paired (but then you also know your hand isn't that strong anymore and can adjust), but wins again if the board is paired, and getting it in boat over flush is an excellent way to get paid big. It notably does not lose to pairs picking up a second pair or even picking up trips, and again you can get paid big when that happens. It only loses to pairs becoming boats, which can happen but isn't that likely.

Compare that to two pair, which can lose to straights, flushes (with much lower chance of making a boat), to one pair becoming two pair, one pair becoming trips, and even just one pair that doesn't pick up anything if you get counterfeit. So two pair is what I would call very vulnerable, and where it's usually correct to just fastplay; a set is what I would call somewhat vulnerable, and hence often a close call between slow and fastplaying.

check turn if hes not passive. this is a really good bluff card for btn.

as played im fine with checking river, and i would CR hoping he was slowplaying a flush. i dont see much value in betting as all bluffs fold and middle pair is folding.

pf is probably a fold but i dont think i could do it this deep. i already play too few hands as it is i dont need to be folding even more. i honestly think if i always took this forums consensus advice re: pf my vpip would be less than 10. the biggest winners in my deep 1/3 game all play quite laggy, and they win because they are comfortable playing wide ranges.

It's not that I'm giving BTN too much credit.

It's that I don't think it's wise or all that profitable to start making huge adjustments against low-stakes opponents with reads that are based on limited observation, especially not in situations where A) our hand is strong and disguised yet vulnerable to being outdrawn, and B) we think our opponent(s) are going to show up with a range that's overly wide (because wide ranges have lots of hands that can improve to beat us).

I'd put slow-playing bottom set here under the heading of huge adjustments we shouldn't be making. It doesn't matter if we think we have a massive skill edge on V. V is in position, and we're 500BB effective. This isn't the spot to get fancy.

Not to beat up on OP, but he called the 12.5x raise before the BTN did. At least the BTN had position, and was getting a price. Before we start assuming BTN is terrible, we should acknowledge that OP may not be the best judge of the BTN's actual skill level, given his own play in this hand.

The two K's on the board dramatically reduce the amount of KX the BTN can have here. But we're really focused on the flop, where there's only one K. But it's of the flush suit. Maybe the BTN is terrible, and finds his way here with all sorts of trashy KX, but if so, it would seem just as likely that he finds his way here with all sorts of good QX / FDFD's and JT.

In other words, rather than assume BTN has KX because he's terrible and getting involved with a wide range, maybe we should consider that he could have a ton of draws here, many of which are much more playable and reasonable limp-calling hands than K8s or K2. He could have every combo of JT and a lot of AXhh and QXhh to go with the slivers of KX he may have - and all of those hands have equity to improve.

Just consider the likely hands BTN could have if you think he shows up with KT down to K2. Would he not also have ATs down to A2s, and JT, and QJs, and K9-KJ, plus maybe some pocket pairs from 55 to 99 that may decide to call the small c-bet, when he's IP and getting a price, for the same reasons he limp-called pre?

It's not just that our hand is vulnerable, it's that we're playing against multiple opponents, and really don't have any way of knowing if or when we're beat on future streets. Any A, 9, or heart will potentially complete a draw. And even if V somehow gets here with something like 55-99, he can make a bigger boat, and we'll never see it coming.

I don't want to put words into Illiterat's mouth, but he makes the point that OP called a $25 open with a low pair, and that we need to take some action to help ensure that speculative pre-flop call is rewarded when we manage to flop a set. Not building a pot with a raise on the flop, especially if it lets one of our opponents overtake us, is an unmitigated disaster.

If you want to slow-play to trap KX, you must acknowledge that doing so allows a lot of other hands to realize their equity for a bargain price, and makes it harder for us to realize ours or get full value for our hand on a lot of runouts.

Yeah I don't really have any big disagreements with anything you said here. Agree that OP's preflop call is a mistake (said so myself in my first comment). I guess the read on the BN could be wrong, although I think in general if I'm responding to a thread I'm just doing it with the assumption that whatever reads OP provides are correct.

And yes, don't disagree with this, either:

I think most people are too hesitant to slowplay; I probably have the opposite problem and want to do it too much. I wanted to slowplay here, but after this convo I'm probably slightly leaning toward the raise instead (I mean it's multiway and has two broadways and two suited cards, so really a lot of reasons to fastplay). But I do mean slightly, I still think it's a close call and that you should seriously consider both options rather than automatically raising. If we adjust the variables just a bit (like replace Q♠ with T♠, or just are more confident in the BN being aggressive), it could tilt me toward a call again. He admittedly hasn't played super aggressively in this hand.

But does raising result in a bigger pot than calling? The modal result of a raise feels like it folds back to SB who may or may not call. You are definitely denying realization to the LP drawing hands, but I feel like it frequently wins a smaller pot.

I think I'm just less concerned about seeing a turn and evaluating four ways when it means the pot is 4x our contribution. We win less frequently, but we win bigger.

Or maybe you're trying to say that you don't think calling is likely to get calls from the two other players? I find it difficult to believe that BTN is going to fold top pair when able to call closing the action, and I also completely believe he can get to the flop with almost any Kx suited. Us calling the open next-to-act should be scary and get tight play from the others in the hand, but IME this is very far from reality in low-stakes.

As a general rule, slow-playing works best when:

1. We're HU, not multi-way.

Most players will intuitively play their hands in a more straightforward, face-up way in multi-way pots, such that the PFR won't always continue betting with his weak hands and draws at the same frequency he'll barrel off when it's HU.

2. We're IP, not OOP.

We can always make a bet if our opponent decides to slow down and check, or pivot to turning our hand into a bluff if appropriate.

3. Our hand isn't overly vulnerable to being downgraded.

Not the case here.

4. Raising would make our hand entirely face up.

Not really the case here, where we're very unlikely to have sets or 2P in our range given the pre-flop action, and could conceivably be starting a bluff on this wet and connected, two Broadway board. Even if no one thinks we could be starting a bluff, it's damned hard to figure out what our value range looks like, when we get here the way we do.

5. Our opponent with the betting lead from the prior street continues his aggression

Here, the SB had the betting lead and c-bet the flop, and could have KK or QQ, which is the only reason I can think of for playing the flop as a flat call, especially since we are in position on him, and we may need to re-think our plan if shenanigans take place (for instance, he c-bets, we call, someone behind raises, and he 3B's - in this scenario, we should really think about letting our hand go).

A raise doesn't need to be huge here, just large enough to fold out the players behind and get this HU with the SB. We could make it $100 or $105, and still fold to a 3B at this stack depth.

---

As an aside, I don't mind opting to slow-play our hand when we boat up on the turn. I recommended OP check as played on the flop, to let BTN start stabbing at it with all his KX, all his 2P, all his draws, and if he's got the cojones, total air. With $200 in the pot, I imagine if the BTN bets, whether it be for value or as a bluff, he'd bet more than the $75 that OP bet.

Notice that the situation changes dramatically on the turn - we're less multi-way after the CO folds flop, and our hand has improved and really isn't all that vulnerable any more. We have position on the last aggressor, who has slowed down and checked, possibly an indication he doesn't have us bigger boat, and there's a loose-aggro V behind us, who may decide this is his chance to steal the pot if we likewise check to him.

If we check, BTN bets, and the SB raises, here again, I think we can save ourselves a ton of money by folding (yes, I would fold bottom boat facing that action in this spot - refer to the above, about opponents playing face-up in multi-way pots).

So...I think it's important to keep in mind that we're not supposed to have bottom set here when we call a 12.5x raise from the SB, when we're in the BB, not closing the action, and we'll be "monkey-in-the-middle" post flop.

And we need to keep in mind that the SB isn't going to make frequent c-bets, for a small size, into three opponents on a board of KQ4 two-tone.

The SB either has a hand that was strong enough to bet, and if so, will almost never fold to our raise, or he was c-betting a hand he shouldn't, and will fold to our raise. But if we raise, and action folds to him, and he likewise folds, we still WIN.

No, we're not getting the correct value for our hand if they all fold after we decided to set mine pre, but we shouldn't be set-mining with this hand pre, by calling a 12.5x raise. Our EV when we call a 12.5x open with 44 is pretty low to start.

Winning the pot on the flop after we flop bottom set on KQ4 two-tone isn't a disaster, it's the avoidance of one.

But, how often is our raise really going to fold out everyone, in a four-way pot, on this board? If you and others are saying the BTN isn't folding KX when we over-call, is he always folding KX if we raise?

Is KQ folding? AJhh or AThh? AhQx? AxQh? Is QJhh? JT? Surely if he's bad enough to get here with every random combo of KX, he's bad enough to call with some of those KX combos, and some of these other combos that are just as, if not more likely to be in his range, no?

Our opponents can't be simultaneously good and bad. It's 1/2, and the CO and BTN both limped (an indication that they're bad). If they're bad, they may not fold all those hands when we raise. They may fold some. They probably won't fold all. There's always someone who thinks they can steal the pot on a later street, because they have the right blockers, or whatever.

But they will DEFINITELY over-call with a lot of those hands (even though they shouldn't, and wouldn't, if they were any good, which they're probably not), and we're going to hate life on a TON of run-outs.

Any A, K, Q, T, 9, or heart changes the nuts and may kill the action. Any 55-JJ potentially makes them a bigger boat. The ONLY truly safe cards are non-heart 2's and 3's, and the case 4 that gives us quads. We basically need to dodge the entire deck (minus those 7 cards) if we want to be certain our hand is best by the river.

All we're doing by calling is letting them realize their equity for a cheap price, in position, rather than charging them to realize their equity, which is what we really should be doing.

It's kind of amazing to me how focused some folks are on the players behind us, rather than being concerned about the PFR in front of us, who just c-bet into three opponents, first to act, for a small size, on a board that smacks the hell out of everyone's range, after he raised to...*looks again*...12.5BBs!!!

Does it look like he's worried about giving his opponents a cheap chance to out-draw him with 50BB's in the pot? Because that's not how it looks to me, at least not on the flop, and I'm not 100% certain he isn't super-nutted when he slows down and checks the turn.

I'm not worried about the players behind folding if we raise. I'm petrified of the SB calling, because we could very easily be cooked here. If SB has AA/AK and the river is an A, we're getting stacked. I suppose the only way we might find a fold is if the river is a Q, and we know we've been counterfeited.

Even after the SB folds turn, we're not in the clear. We may still need to dodge a bunch of cards, and we don't even know what they are, if we think V shows up with all the craptastic KX combos that are definitely in his continuing range when we just flat the flop and bet a piddling 1/3 pot on the turn.

The more we debate this, the more I hate everything about how OP played this, and almost want BTN to have K9 or 99, just so I can say, "I told you so." The best possible outcome here is BTN shows up with JT, no one at the table realizes how terrible our pre-flop call was, and we somehow manage to look like psychic.

Yeah, I kinda didn't want to open this rabbit hole, but I definitely agree with this; that would be my main argument for the upside of slowplaying. ImE raises in mutliway pots are generally perceived as really strong. Even weak players intuitively get that people don't bluff as much in multiway pots. Maybe really new players don't get this as much (I've definitely seen some players completely misjudge situations and treat top-pair-medium-kicker 4-way as if it's a strong hand), but I think that's more of a newbie thing; I think the typical recreational live player doesn't make this mistake.

(I keep thinking that I should therefore find more situations to bluff multiway, but then rarely find the spots to do it. Which again sort of makes the point, it's tough to actually run big bluffs multiway.)

This is fair, calling will more often get a slightly larger pot than raising. But raising flop is the best way to get a much larger pot.

Also, there are two good things going for us:

1. Rec raised limpers big in SB and cbet flop. Esp. given the size maybe he is good enough to be wider than average and does this with TT/99 or even AJs ... but lots of range is going to be not-nothing when he bets. The reason people don't bluff much in multiway pots is that SB will too often have KQ/AA/AK/JTs/whatever that isn't folding. More importantly if we just call and he has TT/AJs/whatever ... he generally isn't going to be blasting off on turn bricks.

2. Loose guy on BTN. He's not going to have a lot of range that can call 35 here, so how much more of it is he going to fold if you make it 85? Yeh, as I said he probably dumps red 77 on the flop, where he might have called 35 for the lolz ... but he isn't putting much more than 35 in if you call flop. Also, he's probably not bluff raising flop if we call ... for the same reasons few people do. If you just call maybe he calls like AT/T9 and will bluff if checked to on turn, but that's still not a spot where he's going to be calling 76 for backdoors and plans to bluff a lot. And to repeat: if he calls 35 a bit wider with those gutters/pairs hands then a lot more turn cards are now bad for us, if he doesn't fold turn.

...but, yes, you can raise to 85 here and both Vs will fold a non-trivial amount of the time. Just like you can call 35 on flop, see a brick turn 3 ways, get checked to, bet 125, and both fold.

Which is a lot of why I said it's so bad to call pre. ... you have to hit, and you have to get a lot of money in when you do or you are losing even when you win. And getting a lot of money in OOP without setting off an air raid alarm just isn't easy on most flops.

Grunch: Plenty deep enough to set mine pre, even OOP, imo, but I bet some others disagree. Raise flop. No K is folding (even among those yet to act), some Qs will call and most FDs will too, and KQ and AK will sometimes re-raise and let us play for stacks by river.

AP, bet turn bigger for fat value.

AP to river, given your reads, it is probably a c/r, but vs most players it is, once again, a bet for fat value.