I just expect sb to have all sorts of semi bluffs and worse made hands in his range here. Even though we block hands that we want SB to have, this is not a fold imo
Agree it's probably not a huge issue.

You are right about check raising frequency. In my game it is usually 2pair+ or a big draw with 12 or so outs. We block a lot of the draws here so that makes the draw less likely. Throw in 10-10 and QQ. Pretty marginal spot.

SPR is 4, you have an overpair on a draw-heavy board, you beat worse value hands/all bluffs/all draws, just rip it in.

Flop bet is a little big, but it's not really a big deal. I'd probably go 70-75% pot instead of 80%

Can you explain the merits of going smaller? Is it to try and get called by weaker hands? Is it to make it cheaper if we intended to bet/fold? Or something else?

Will you confirm your appx depth please? You only said 'if' you were 300eff earlier, it wasn't clear, and it matters.

Anyways, if the btn weren't in the hand you still have a breakeven shove (assuming he calls 100%) vs SB QQ, TT-88, 33, 98s (and it should be wider)... and when he is in the hand you're ok on a shove even if his BTN range were precisely A6dd/99-88 (and it's just rarely this narrow)

I'm sure Minatorr will get to it at a higher level, but smaller sizing adds a little more playability to the hand on this street and on future streets. You want to get value, sure, but you don't want to bet more than you need to when you might have to give up your hand facing certain actions on this or future streets.

Okay let's compare what happens when you bet 66% & full-pot on this board texture, just to illustrate the extremity.

It's unlikely 8x is ever folding to a 66% pot bet. Probably one over or two overs plus a gutshot are peeling vs a 66% pot bet. These hands are much more likely to be folding if you pot it.

And when you get x/r'ed when you bet 66% & full-pot, which x'ring range is stronger?

Yes, those are some reasons for a smaller bet sizing than 80%+ on this texture. We get called by weaker hands, and it's cheaper if we intend to b/f say Qd10x.

But this is still a board texture we don't want to bet a lot of our range on, so it makes sense to go with a larger sizing when we do decide to bet. The 66-75% range is good.

You will get raised lighter when you use a smaller bet sizing, which is good for your value range. Let's say you bet 80%-100% pot with TPTK+ here. You're in a really awkward spot with A9/1010 because people are less likely to be bluffing here OTF or making worse value raises when you bet so large. You don't really care about your bluffs (well, your non-nutted/strong ones at least) because you're folding either way to a x/r.

Also, I think by instinct most people aren't going to bet 80%+ pot here with a weak draw like QdTx/QxTd/QJo, so your range is mostly going to be value oriented here when you bet this large. It's pretty easy for attentive players, even fishier players, to exploit this in multiple ways consciously or subconsciously. E.g. folding weak pairs, folding weak draws, have less spaz bluffs in their x/r'ing range, etc.

Some people have really predictable bet sizings, and I remember one time overbet shoving over a large flop c-bet on a super connected board with a set and getting snapped off by QQ.

The more I play and the more I understand where my own personal wheelhouse is versus my opponents wheelhouses, the more I understand the benefits of playing shorter. My game at 100bb stacks actually plays quite short due to big raises and multiway action, so I treat that as "shortstacked" and am comfortable enough at that stack size; if your game doesn't play as "short" at that depth, then no harm in perhaps sitting with $200 stacks. Still, I would simply start pushing the envelope with your preflop raise sizes (as I suggested earlier in this thread) and see where that gets you.

GcluelessshortstackingnoobG

I had around $300 to start the hand.