1/3 QQ vs pfish

This is one of those spots where you should pay attention to your own reads and observations.

You know V is passive. He's probably not going to pile it in for you. He doesn't go for max value, but he will bluff-catch. He has a tight opening range.

So what should you do?

If it were me, when V opens to $15 over 2 limpers, and we're starting $800 eff, I'd 3B to at least $75.

FLOP - Yes, absolutely we should c-bet this board, and for a large-ish size, given how wet and dynamic it is. I'd probably go full pot. V is going to be most inelastic on the flop. He's going to get more price-sensitive on each subsequent street.

It's a 3B pot and he's supposed to be tight. What do you think we're losing to here? TT?

Seems like a WA/WB situation to me. Provided we don't think V has it in them to bluff raise, sure, go big now.

FWIW, I think V can easily have all of T9s-ATs as a passive who calls wide. But, they have a lot of other combos too that might call one off, even if large. V may not have 3!'d AKhh, for example. Just have to be careful here.

Talking about playing for stacks and I’m thinking you will be lucky to get called. Like your pre-flop play, now bet a quarter on the flop. Really think ‘fit or fold’ will fold here a lot.

Passive player opens, they usually call the 3bet - it’s a leak at low limits calling 3bets

So, now we’re likely ahead, but should be cautious without info. I like betting small on the flop & if called small again on the turn.
If villain has a monster, even the most passive will find a raise after two small bets. Then, you have a decision to make.

More likely, we get calls or a fold. As long as we get calls, have to consider ourselves ahead. How thin to bet the river will depend on the runout, which could change everything.

Don’t think gambling with big bets is necessary or desirable. Sure, you could shove and get called by JJ, but I don’t think you can target that hand, & a T call would hurt.

I’d bet $75 on the flop and take it from there. There are very few runouts where QQ is going to be worth three streets of value but probably should default to betting with a value hand against a passive fish.

I am going to take a different route from the other posters and say that I don't think this is a bad flop to check from out of position and evaluate if BTN bets. BTN has way more nuts on this board than you do, and I don't think you can get three streets of value from worse, barring maybe exclusively JJ. He might even be the type of guy that will check back flop with 88 and TX but stab with 99 and 77, which is obviously incredible for us.

I like this better than a big bet that will get folds and no value.

If our read is that BTN is loose and continues wide, his range getting to the flop could be 22-JJ, every combo of suited AX, a fair bit of offsuit AX, a lot of SC's, some suited gappers, and maybe some worse playable trash.

How much of his range are we behind, as a portion of his entire range? How much of his range can we effectively target for value?

Yeah, he could have TT, 88, T8, and a bunch of TX. He could also have a $hlt-ton of draws, worse SDV, and a plethora of un-paired over-cards that may float light.

If we check or bet small, he just gets to realize his equity for a lower price, and continue with a wider range, and we get to guess what to do on almost every turn that doesn't boat us up, with an awkward SPR.

If there aren't many run-outs which will allow us to get three streets of value, then let's just make this a two street game. Bet pot on the flop. If he calls the pot will be $420 on the turn and we'll have $595 behind. We can just over-bet jam turn for 1.4x pot.

Hell, we could even over-bet the flop slightly, like $180, and then jam turn for around 1.1x pot.

If he has a better value hand, so be it. We can't be afraid to bet our over-pairs for value in spots like this. If we're not going for max value here, are we only going for it when we have Tx or better?

What if we have Tx and he has 88? What if we have 88 and he has TT? At what point do we decide we beat enough of his range that we can go for value? Only when we have quads?

Put yourself in V's spot. What hands would you bet here? Which hands would you bet small, and which hands would you bet big? Would you bet all your draws, or just your combo-draws, and otherwise check back? Would you bet your SDV hands, like AK or 99?

Say you bet 99, 77, AJs, something like that, and your opponent x/r'd. Are you calling? On this board?

The problem with checking is that there are very few hands that are going to bet, because his strongest hands don't have much to worry about, and his weaker hands are concerned about getting check-raised on this super wet and connected board.

Say he checks it back. What then? What turn cards are we betting? Over-cards to our Q's? Hearts? Straight-completing cards? What are the total bricks? Can we be sure V wouldn't raise pre with every PP when he's on the BTN?

What's our plan? Are we just going to check every street, hoping to get to showdown?

Uhm...

With that read, I'd think V would call our turn jam with some worse hands.

V doesn't know we have QQ. Hero 3B from the SB. We could have a lot of hands here.

Why would this board be a range check in a 3B pot? If anything, I'd think it's a board we'd want to range bet.

If we're not betting QQ here, what are we betting? How many draws are we likely to have here?

It seems like the reason to check rather than bet is because V might stab at it with worse. But he's not stabbing at it if he's passive.

Yeah, I mean, V is going to have some bet-folds. So what? Are those hands going to call facing pot or overpot? He also might stab some hands that would fold to any bet. There are plusses and minuses to both strategies.

If villain checks back flop, we can go for value on basically every turn card, with the exception of maybe an A. His range is really well-defined after he checks back flop, which makes the hand significantly easier to play, both with value and with bluffs. Almost no one checks flop here and then raises turn IP with a bluff.

Which hands? Lol. You didn't answer the question, you just said "some worse hands."

BTW, I don't think the HH that OP provided is that instructive. Dude had showdown value, so he checked to the river, then called a bet in a spot where people tend to overbluff. Maybe I am missing something.

It could be a range check because villain has significantly more trips and full houses than we do. TT8 is completely different from T88 for that reason. If I am betting this flop, I would rather have hands that can easily bet-3b GII or simply bet-fold. Personally, I wouldn't want to make either of those plays with this hand.

If we are playing it as a range bet (certainly also a viable strategy, btw) we would bet small, not pot or overpot.

IMO a "passive fish" villain doesn't necessarily mean someone that won't bet flop in a 3b pot to protect against AK or flush draws. If that's what "passive fish" means to other people, than bet is probably best.

Probably not going to respond to another long post about this subject. I think that we think about poker very differently.

I think "some worse hands" would be enough of a range description without having to list them all.

If V has us beat already, we're probably going broke. If he doesn't have us beat yet, there aren't many run-outs we'll love, so I want to take a line that gets max value before we have to slow down and go into check-cal mode, or V decides to give up.

Seems to me that thee aren't very many hands we're behind on the flop, but there will be a ton of hands we'll be behind on a lot of run-outs if the flop checks through.

It's interesting because I think in theory you're 100% right we're supposed to do a lot of checking here, if not range check, cba simming it just going of memory of similar spots so could be horribly wrong BUT I'm not sure we should be doing any checking vs this player type. I agree we won't get 3 streets of value but flop is the one street where none of his draws fold to a bet.

I agree with all of this. I also looked up some poor approximation of this spot on GTOw and it was a range check spot.

Edit: just saw results, well played IMO

If your approach to the hand is, I am stacking off with QQ on this board for 267bb, I would just lead with that. OP asked that question in his initial post.

It's not too hard to count combos and I think it's a worthwhile exercise.

If we give villain just T9s+ (debatable if people call any offsuit TX here) plus 88 and TT, he has 13 combos that have us basically dead.

ATs - Two combos
KTs - Two combos
QTs - One combo
JTs - Two combos
T9s - Two combos
88 - Three combos
TT - One combo

What "worse" hands (worse in quotations because AXhh and KXhh are pretty close equity-wise) continue facing a pot-sized bet?

AKhh that doesn't 4b, AQhh, AJhh, KQhh, KJhh, QJhh, J9hh that isos two limpers, six combos of JJ, six combos of 99... anything else? Maybe a few combos of backdoor clubs? Does he even have 8x here? V was described as opening a tight range pre.

Do any of those hands call an overbet jam on turn? Would any of them bet flop if we check? How many weak pairs and airball bluffs stab flop that we fold out by betting big?

I appreciate this take and am entirely amenable to the idea that flop should be a bet as an exploit against this specific guy. That being said, I think a small bet is better (as others have said). Looking at the reveal, I agree with Dan that OP played the hand well.

I wasn't saying we should always stack off. Obviously we need to be wary if the most obvious draws come in on the turn.

I think we can target a lot of hands with a big bet on the flop. He can get sticky with some lower PP's and a ton of draws. And if the turn is just a brick, yeah, we're probably just going with it.

I don't love the spot we put ourselves in when we 3B small pre, especially given our read on V. I'd like it better if we 3B bigger pre, so we can more easily rationalize stacking off post.

As played, we let V get to the flop and turn with a wider range, so while it's nice to get a smidge of value and not get raised on the flop, it's hard to get a big turn bet paid off by very many hands.

I'd prefer to bet flop big and size down on the turn, if we're still worried about him having us beat.

I'm glad we can agree on something all of a sudden.

I actually also agree that $75 or $80 is better pre this deep, with extra dead money in the pot.

Pre should be bigger imo.

I think flop is close between small bet and check. I think the hand was played relatively well.

Not sure if sincere or sarcastic.

Just to be clear about how I view this:

1. I'd prefer a bigger 3B pre, when we have a big PP, we're OOP, and we think V is both sticky and passive.

2. Regardless of our 3B size, I don't love the flop texture, but I'd hate it less if we did 3B bigger pre, if only because I think he'd show up with fewer combos of TX and 88.

3. I don't love how we got to the flop, so I don't love any of our options, but based on the sticky / passive read, I like a big flop bet better than a small one, and a small bet better than checking, because I think a lot of hands we can target for value on the flop are very likely to just check back, and fold to a delayed c-bet on the turn.

4. I wouldn't be fist-pumping to get stacks in when we think V can show up with some combos of TX and 88, but I'd prefer to try to get a big bet paid on the flop and jam brick turns, rather than get a small bet paid on the flop and then hope he gets REALLY sticky by calling a roughly 1/2 pot barrel with his SDV.

Call me crazy, but I think this V is likely to call a big flop bet with more than just JJ for worse value. If he's the typical low-stakes rec-fish who thinks his opponent is always c-betting flop with AK/AQ/AXhh, he's probably calling our flop bet with 99, 77, maybe even 66 or some lower PP's, plus all the umpteen-million draws he can have.

But once he calls flop, most of those hands are likely going to fold to a turn barrel. Even if we bet turn for a smallish size, he may not call twice with 77 and lower PP's, and maybe not 99. He's probably only calling a small bet with his draws to the nuts and JJ.

I think the reveal bears out what I'm saying. He folded to a 1/2 pot bet. He probably didn't fold JJ or a really good draw. He probably folded some under-pair to the board that was floating wide because of the wet board texture. If he's floating wide, he's probably calling a bigger 3B pre, and probably calling a bigger c-bet on the flop.

If he calls flop and we don't like the turn, we can slow down and check. Our hand makes for a reasonable bluff catcher, whether the turn brings in a draw or not. If we think we might be beat when he calls a big flop c-bet, we can check and evaluate turn and river. If our read is that he's passive, and given the prior HH, he seems unlikely to run a big two-street bluff, or go for massive sizing with his better value hands.

Say we pot it on the flop, and he calls. He could have worse value. If we jam for a PSB on the turn (I know the math is wrong and it would be more than that), he'll be getting 2:1. If he thought we were bluffing with AX, he may call with worse. The best way to get max value for our over-pair is to bet big with it, even if that means we risk getting snapped off by TX or 88.

Doc, I bolded a section of your previous post because I thought it supported the argument that I was making earlier. I am going to bold two more lines of your post below, because I think they contradict one another.

Can you confirm that your approach to the hand is, "Villain won't call a half pot bet on the turn with many worse hands, so I prefer to shove for overpot?" Are you turning QQ into a bluff here? I get your rationale behind betting big on flop, but your approach to the turn does not make sense to me, especially when we know that villain can have 13 (or more!) combos that snap us off every time.

I also think it's somewhat silly to act like the preflop sizing (which is a reasonable sizing!) makes such a big difference in the hand. Preflop fold equity from the SB is important, but we don't mind a passive fish calling hands like 88 and JTs (we have those hands crushed!!) as long as we can avoid losing 267bb every time they hit.

(This is legitimately my last post ITT. Perhaps we can argue about it on the felt one day.)

I don't understand why you'd quit posting in the thread. Sorry if my comments are causing stress, as that wasn't my intent.

Hopefully this will make sense...

I would like to get max value on the flop. Once we get V to put in a bunch of money on the flop, I think it gets harder for him to fold to a turn barrel, because he's invested more in the pot (sunk costs logical fallacy).

He can tell himself that we could be bluffing to rationalize calling with a worse value hand, or he can tell himself he's getting a good price to call with his draws.

Essentially, the more money they put in on earlier streets, the harder it is for them to fold to proportionally smaller bets on later streets (proportional to the pot / remaining stack depth). If our read is that V makes light calls on later streets, I'd think he'd be even more likely to continue on the turn after calling a big flop bet.

Conversely, and paradoxically, if we bet small on flop, and then barrel turn, even for a small size, it doesn't necessarily look like we're bluffing. It may just look like we're betting for value. Since he hasn't invested very much in the pot, it's easier for him to fold his weaker hands. Maybe we get a light call because he will make them, but we're just leaving money on the table and making it harder for ourselves to extract max value on subsequent streets.

If we can get a PSB called on the flop, I'd want to target the top of V's range with another big turn bet, even knowing that bet may fold out the bottom of V's range. He might still find a light hero call with the bottom of his range, but that's not the part of his range we'd be targeting.

If we bet small on the flop, I think a turn barrel, of any size, is mostly just targeting that same top portion of V's range to call, and might be folding out the same bottom portion. I think he actually folds more of his range when there's less in the pot to fight for (less sunk costs).

The difference is two-fold. First, a big bet on the flop gets more value from his entire range. Second, calling a big flop bet makes it harder for him to fold to a turn barrel, of any size.

So my approach to the hand is to take a line that gets max value from his entire range by starting out with a big flop bet, and then tries to get max value again with a big turn bet.

So, no, I wouldn't be turning QQ into a bluff. I'd be betting it for max value. And I think the discussion would be somewhat different if we'd 3B large enough pre to discount some of the combos that would have us beat, and got us to the flop with a slightly lower SPR.

I would probably 3bet smaller preflop as I don't want to bloat the pot OOP to put huge stacks more easily in play. A more "standard" 3x should easily isolate and create a slightly more playable SPR.

Our larger preflop sizing has created a much more dangerous / handcuffing SPR of ~5ish which ain't great OOP, imo.

I think with QQ (which does fear some overs) I might start with a small cbet and see what happens. With a less vulnerable AA (especially one with Ah) I might more lean check.

ETA: I don't hate our flop/turn, but notice how if called it leaves us with just a ~PSB for the river OOP. Maybe not as much of a concern against someone who isn't capable of making a bluff in a big pot, but not necessarily a great spot to be in either.

GcluelessNLnoobG

If we think it is a WA/WB situation then going big is the worst option, imo.

Gnothatin',justsayin'G

I want to quit posting here (but evidently can't) because it's taking up a lot of my time and I don't think we are getting anywhere useful.

You just said, "I'd want to target the top of V's range with another big turn bet" but you have refused to articulate what the "top of V's range" even looks like. I gave you an approximation of V's range that shows that most of V's range is either A.) way ahead of us, or B.) likely to fold out, and you completely ignored it.

One of my favorite online chess instructors has a term he calls "hope chess" which refers to the process of making a fundamentally unsound play because you "hope" villain will make a bigger mistake in response. You are betting big on turn here because you hope that villain will fall victim to "sunk cost fallacy" and are ignoring the theoretical aspect of the hand. It's the poker equivalent of leaving your queen unprotected just in case the opponents misses your unprotected queen and gives up checkmate instead.