No it's not a better argument for HU vs. LAG because hero's 3bet range is so f'ing narrow in this spot that a good LAG can pwn hero on a ton of flops.

lol...the only congruency Pokahblow and i have is in flatting pre.

Overplay on how he will react to our c/r with certain hands. Draws,TPTK(that we beat obviously) and combo draws.

If the flop comes A/K high, I would be c/r'ing as a bluff. With a decent size I can let go. Basically a c/r:b/f.

I see some conflicting information.

Wouldn't it make more sense to bluff-raise a wide range than to bluff-raise a narrow range?

I think my read on pokahblows is "over plays top pair type hands" based on posting.

+1, same read here.

Hahahahhahhhahahaa

With no prior 3betting, hero's 3betting range is miniscule (AA, KK, ok QQ)
hero's flatting range can be (22-JJ, 89ss+, AXss, AQo+, one gappers...)

It's much easier for the LAG to proceed on the flop against hero's 3betting range. It's not that easy for the LAG to sift through a wide pre-flop flatting range that hero leads turn with

Well, you're assuming that villain thinks hero will fold his overpair. Depending on the size of the 3-bet and villain's perception of hero, villain might never bluff raise hero post-flop. As you know, making people fold overpair in LLSNL with low SPR is like burning money, and a good LAG should know that.

If villain thinks that hero is donking with a wide range on the turn, a good LAG will know that there is a lot of FE by raising the turn, and if villain has a semi-bluff hand, it's even better.

Perhaps I am not reading this sentence correctly, but it almost sounds like you're implying that a good LAG such as V2 isn't bluff raising hero out of fear that there isn't any FE, and thus you're actually saying that a donk on the turn has narrower range than 3-betting pre.

I got a PM asking me to come and comment on the QQ discussion, but I'm not sure what aspect of the discussion I should be commenting on.

I looked back at the OP regarding this hand and saw that the OP was asking for an appropriate 3 bet size, and at least one recommendation that we flat. I thought both of those issues warranted a comment, so I will start there.

3 bet size: Effective stacks are hero's $500. A 3 Bet to $50 yields us a nice round SPR of 5, and we can intend to put in stacks on a safe board. As a general rule, when we are OOP, our 3 bets should be a little bigger than when we are IP; this is simply to plus up our FE a little bit and subtract a bit from his RIO. Even with AA, we don't mind all that much winning the pot right there, as RIO hands especially suck to play OOP, and they especially especially suck to play OOP and deep. So $50 or $55 here makes him pay the highest price for feeling frisky with some trappy 97s speculative call he might make when we caught him at the bottom of his laggy iso range but he can't find the fold button because he is in position.

So if we 3 bet this guy, I like a slightly larger than normal 3 bet--$50 or $55.

But it is not clear to me that 3 betting this guy is the best play here. It might be; I am not saying it is or isn't. The OP doesn't provide enough information for me to decide.

Here are some questions I would need the answer to before deciding whether we should or should not 3 bet this guy:

1. What do we know about his 3 bet calling tendencies?
2. If we don't have sufficient info on his 3 bet calling tendencies, is he one of those cocky ass lags who will call with a stupidly wide range IP because they think they can outplay anybody?
3. Have we seen him overbet c-betting in 3 bet pots?
4. Is his bet sizing more conventional on the turn and river? Or dos he continue overbetting?
5. Is raising one limper to $15 standard for him, or is it an unusually big iso raise?
6. Have we seen him iso-ing a wide range that he'd have to fold to a 3 bet?

I guess you guys can see where I am going with this. As a lag, he presumably has a wide, weak range to be making this isolation raise. If he is sensible, he will be turbo-mucking most of it to a 3 bet. This is bad for us (but not all that bad). But if he plays penis waving poker and will call us with most of that wide range, then we definitely want to accept the opportunity to 3 bet him and get him to put in $40 more with a range that will mostly have between 19 and 33% equity against us.

So this is an easy 3 bet against a lag who calls a lot of 3 bets in position.

Against a sensible lag who doesn't feel like it is unmanly to fold to a 3 bet, our decision is quite a bit more difficult. I still lean toward 3 betting, but calling has merit against him. The main thing is we get to play against his entire isolation range, rather than just the top part of it he'd call a 3 bet with. This is GREAT, because a lot of his hands are hands that have only one overcard--AT, AJ, AT, A9, KJ, KTs, and a lot of the other hands are hands that have no overcards and have really terrible equity against us.

The downside, of course, to calling, is that we will have terrible relative and absolute position in a 4 way pot. This is a powerful argument for 3 betting in itself. But the hand can be played profitably in this spot, but mainly by semi-set-mining with it. But it's not a bad plan against a guy who we expect to fold to the vast majority of our 3 bets. Its merit lies in the fact that it keeps the SPR a little bigger (but his overbetting will still get us to the commitment threshold in this hand) and in the fact that we are playing against a weaker range with a decent amount of mostly dead money from the other two villains, and in the fact that one in 8.5 times we will bink a super well-disguised nut hand against a guy who is going to overbomb an already bloated pot--man, when i put it like that, it moves a little bit thinking about flatting here.

If we think he will fold to most of our 3 bets and decide we want to call to take advantage of the amount of dead money he will put in on an overbet c-bet, then my plan would be to surrender the pot to either an overcard or aggression from either of the two other players in the pot. Against the button lag on a safe flop, our hand becomes a bluff catcher, and we check/guess, check/guess, check/guess on most boards.

But if we think he'll call a lot of 3 bets, 3 bet away. My default play in the absence of information informing the decision would be to 3 bet.

Great writeup, Mpethy. I always enjoy reading them. The OP provided some info which was the only reason I am advocating flatting here:
1) Little to no 3betting has occurred at this table
2) Villain is a good thinking LAG

I also said earlier, I actually don't mind being sandwiched between the two shortstacked fish and the good LAG. My plan would be to flat pre, check/call any cbet. If one of the fish decides to shove, then we get to see what the good LAG does before we decide what to do. At that point, each option has its unique merits:
1) one or both fish shove, the LAG folds. we can call (with an SPR of 2 against one and an SPR of 3 against the other fish)
2) one or both fish shove, the LAG calls, we have an OPPORTUNITY to get a juicy sidepot going with the LAG.

He NEVER puts us on QQ here. Obv all of this is conditional on player tendencies, board texture, and the ensuing action. However, the framework is laid out for a super +EV play

I'm from an online background, but I'm still astonished by how little live read info people include in their posts. Why is this?

2/5, 6-handed with mandatory straddle on for the round.

Villain is middle-aged white recreational player. He plays pretty loose passive. After beating a player out of a pot laughed at himself and said something to the effect of "I just close my eyes and put money in and hope for the best"

Hero has been playing somewhat tight and pretty aggresively- raising limpers and cbetting often.

Hero ($900)
Villain ($500)

Hero (9c 9s) raises straddle to $30 from UTG+1
Villain calls from MP
Straddle calls from UTG

Flop ($97) 2 6 7 rainbow
Straddle checks
Hero bets $75
Villain calls
Straddle folds

Turn ($247) 2c 6 7 Tc ($395 effective)
Hero ?

You are probably ahead here only 1/3 of the time, assuming he has OESD, sets, 2p, and overpairs in his range. I would check/fold.

I'd probably bet again. You have blockers to 98. Other than that, not much has changed. I don't really like c/c with all the bad cards that can come and I really can't see much of a reason to c/f.

Folding out his floats isn't a terrible result either.

If you're read is accurate that this villain is LP then

Against a LP, I'd bet/f $120 every time..your not gonna get raised by worse. Ch/call is meaningless as this villain doesn't bluff or vbet a worse hand. And ch/f is weak and nitty.
Betting will get called by any PP<99, any 6x, 7x, even 4-5. Sometimes you're valueowning yourself by betting tand running into sets, 2pairs... but the value you get by worse hands calling outweighs the times you valueown yourself.
You have to get at least two streets of value...Three streets of value would be golden