99 in CO: C-bet or give up?

Check and reevaluate turn. Don't see what betting 99 on this flop accomplishes.

V UTG+1 std. range is like AX (x=trash) suited and small PP. On KJ8r you have the best hand a lot, and V mostly has like 3 outs to an A and 2 outs to a set.

Sometimes they'll have like KTo or maybe JTo, but that's life.

But betting often makes the hand easier to play, because if you check then folding is going to be a big problem without reads that they aren't just randomly stabbing air or 33. Also even though they only have 2-3 outs, checking lets them realize that 4-7% equity.

Also if you bet this flop with AJ then also betting 99 here makes their random (you can't always have it) 77 or 87o calls much worse.

Also V description given heavily implies that if you bet flop and he calls, then turn x/x, any bet on the river is better.

As a final point, if you check it's not like you have Q9s with BDFD and you can pick up equity on the turn. Mostly you'll get to the river with 3rd pair or worse and guessing if V is stabbing because you checked.

If we aren't checking 99, are we checking anything on this board?

It is a board we can bet a ton (roughly 80% in theory) the two hands that really want to check are 99 and 77. Exploitatively we can bet if we're just betting range and we think V is overfolding, but these are the last hands we want to bet.

If we do bet I think it's a one and done thing, we don't want to go to the mat with this hand on this board. So I'd consider betting pretty much only against fit or fold type players.

Of course you bet here and villain folds if he doesn’t have a king. They always think you have AK.

Checking is bad in so many ways
It admits weakness, allows free draws, emboldens villain, lets him catch up, now thinks 2nd pair is good and it is.

Run over this guy
Take the $15 and move on
Don’t play around & let v get lucky

Obviously, if v shows any aggression at all, you can safely say you’re beat and fold.

Bet $15 - $20 to continue the story.

So cbet and barrel to try to get 2nd pair to fold?

So you think hands like AJ, QJ, JT are going to fold to a single c-bet? V has a lot more than just Kx if he calls. AQ, QT, T9 are also sticking around at least one card.

We're putting nearly 10% of our stack into a cbet that doesn't work against a huge chunk of his range. Then what? When V calls and checks, are we going to continue firing on a brick? With an SPR below 1.7? Or are we shutting down and letting QJ just win an extra bet?

This isn't a board where Vs will frequently donk flop, so all his Kx and Jx, 2p, sets are in range. V is passive, so he isn't likely to start bluffing turn just because we checked. He might start betting Kx+. If we want to bluff, a delayed c-bet would be lower risk and fold out pretty much the same stuff. Though this is a combo I'm happy to just check down and win or lose. We have much better bluffs with no SDV.

vs. a loose passive just check it down.

Hand continues

UTG limps. V UTG+1 calls. Hero in CO with black 99 raises to 15. Only V calls.

Flop (30): JcKd8h

V checks. Hero? Hero actually checks.

Turn: 2d

V bets 20. Hero folds.

Does anyone entertain the possibility that since you checked back and showed weakness, villain bet the turn & stole it.

Villain hits the flop 32% of the time which means 68% of the time he has no king, no jack and you are ahead. It’s worth a stab on the flop

If you get called, now you check back the turn and see the river, realizing your equity.

If you fold when someone breathes on the pot, why play nines. I don’t see how people cannot see the obvious value of betting in this spot.

fine

Played fine. Limp-call range hits this board a lot and I'm not going to war trying to get a Jack to fold. If he had checked the turn, a small bet would be acceptable (try and get sticky 8x and underpairs to call, deny equity to overcards and gutshots etc). This loose-passive limper isn't going to be thinking about ranges etc, you might be able to bet an Ace-high board but this line is absolutely fine. Did you get bluffed off your hand? Yeah maybe. Don't lose sleep

I'm okay with checking back or range betting 1/2 pot IP.

If we bet and he calls I'm just checking back most turns. We might bluff catch river if he stabs small, but we might also just over-fold to his river stabs when we have him pegged as loose passive.

If we check back flop, I think he's supposed to stab the turn for a small size at a high frequency. Here again, if he's loose passive, I wouldn't expect him to stab as much. And if he does stab, he may telegraph his hand strength with his sizing.

I think I'd lean towards checking back more than c-betting against a loose passive who over-limped and then flatted our raise pre.

Yuck.

I probably fold too. Doubtful he's doing this with worse value. Probably not even betting worse than TP.

How often do you think a loose passive opponent is going to stab turn for 2/3 pot without a hand that beats 99?

If we c-bet the flop and check back turn, yes, we realize our equity. But that assumes V doesn't x/r flop or donk turn. And it still leaves us with the problem of what to do when V stabs river after the turn checks through.

Think about it. If we think V is stabbing turn as a bluff when we check back flop, would it not stand to reason he could stab river as a bluff when we check back turn?

In your experience, do loose passive V's over bluff or under bluff? Do they tend to stab wildly with air from OOP, or do they tend to bet for value and check-call with their draws?

C-betting flop with a plan to check back turn just costs us more when V x/r's flop and we fold, donks turn and we fold, or stabs river and we fold. Even if we spike a 9 to make a set, it brings in one of V's most likely draws, of QT.

I believe this is why Yami is saying we shouldn't blast off with 99 or 77. We've only got two outs to improve, and they bring in our opponents' most likely OESD combos.

It comes down to the player type, but either way checking the flop is better. Consider if you were playing against me, and I have been stabbing frequently and attacking weakness, then you don't want to fold the turn.

But you still don't want to bet the flop, because if I totally whiffed and you bet flop I'm just going to fold. The best play versus an aggressive player is to check back the flop, with the intention to call down and profit from their bluffs on the turn.

This player was described as a loose passive player, which implies that they aren't going to do a lot of betting without a strong hand, but will be prone to calling wide. Against a player with that profile, what do they have when they lead out on the turn?

In general, most players at the stake are not being aggressive enough and when they lead to turn on a brick when there are limited draws, they are not bluffing anywhere near enough. If our opponents are not bluffing enough then we should fold all of our bluff catchers.

I agree we could continue on the turn against some players. But against the typical loose passive that is the dominant species at these stakes, anything but a fold is just feeding the fish.

Hand looks like it's played well. With the two broadways on the flop I would mostly check. If V is loose passive they're not going to be betting a worse hand often on the turn so fold is good. E.g. Not sure if they bet QT type stuff. Minimal damage, can't win them all, next hand.

I simply disagree
Never checking this flop
At least I err on the aggressive side

Don’t play many hands, but if I enter the arena there will be a battle - not playing passive with passive people.

The turn bet thoughts are ridiculous to me. Guy bet 20 and y’all think it’s a monster. Even passive players realize the flop check means you’re weak and his A8 is good now.

It’s funny that if it was a bunch of aggressive players, then I like checking back the flop

I’ll have to consider this more since you all seem to be in the same camp, but I’m not advocating wild play, just aggressive play against passive people.

I sort of agree with Yami and DB on this one, that 99 is one of the hands that makes the most sense to go into our checking range. I would also put QQ and TT in that category. These hands have showdown value as they beat a lot of hands that will just check down, like Ax and smaller pocket pairs. However they're not doing particularly well when we put in a lot of money.

I'm all for playing aggressively, but there are so many other hands to bet with on this board that benefit more from folding out more better hands and have less showdown value. Hands like QT, Q9s, AQ, AT etc all have less showdown value than 99, more potential to improve to a nut hand, and thus more incentive to bet.

Now if we do check back flop with 99, I'm likely calling at least one small bet on blank turns or rivers. It's probably correct to fold facing a 2/3 pot bet, but if he had bet like 1/3 pot I probably would have called and continued trying to get to showdown.

On a nut-changing river you could also sometimes turn your hand into a delayed bluff. For example he bets 1/3 pot on a blank turn, we call and river is an ace. He checks, then we could consider making a big bet as a bluff.

Just because you check back the flop doesn't necessarily mean you're just giving up.

GWF makes a good point. If we bet flop and check back turn, or barrel turn, we're guessing on a lot of rivers, where we'll often be folding to a donk or checking back. If we check back flop, we can call a reasonable size turn stab. If V then checks river on a scare card, we'll often be able to get a bluff through.

When we have the additional benefit of knowing V is loose passive, we don't need to bet flop as much. V is likely to either check to us again on the turn when he has a weak hand, allowing us to make a delayed c-bet, or he's going to stab, and we can decide if we want to continue based on his sizing.

When he stabs 2/3 pot, he's probably not bluffing or betting worse for value. He's probably betting with a hand that wasn't going to fold to our c-bet, and would have called a turn barrel or delayed double barrel on the river.

Riiiiight. Balance is key, or something.

Villain will remember we check back 99 here and will give us credit for a strong hand the next time we're in the CO, 112BB's deep, in a single raise pot over two limpers, only one of which called, get a KJ8 rainbow flop, and are checked to by this exact same player.

I wonder when that will be?

I'm with FreeCard on this one. We ended up being the passive player.

Maybe you betflop folks have a point. We can bet flop and be called by 8x, and all the bway draws. Even tho you're not really way ahead of the draws it can freeze further action if you bet.
Then check turn...and often V is not going to bluff river with a busted draw.
I don't know, both options seem reasonable.

LOL at everyone worried about missing value from 8x and getting bluffed by 8x on the turn if we check flop. Total scared money stupidity.

I can't keep ripping off Charlie Carrell's signature line, so I'm going to paraphrase it.

Define your opponent's range, and choose the appropriate response.

What is your villain's range?

1. He has dozens upon dozens of combos of Kx and Jx
2. He has 8x, though noticeably less combos than Kx and Jx
3. He has lots of broadway cards with gutshots
4. He has 2 pair and 88 for a set.
5. Random Ace-rag
6. Small pairs lower than 8's
7. Low suited/connected hands like 65s, 54s,

Those are the categories.

#1-#4 are not folding. Most of those hands have you crushed, and you're only a tiny favorite against the rest.

#5 and #6 would fold and we could benefit from that equity protection. However, this is too small of a fraction of Villain's range. If you're @GreatWhiteFish, then you might say "But a c-bet will fold out pocket 5's". While that's true in the narrowest possible sense....it's not enough combos on which to build an over-arching strategy for this hand.

Category #7 hands have near 0 equity and no showdown value. i.e. they're irrelevant to this analysis.

Forget balance. Forget GTO. Forget about trying to convince yourself he always has 8x. Look at the full range, and choose the best action.

Only bet here if you hate money.