Haven't played much mix since series, this is my first hand dealt in a six handed game. villain is unknown. have never played with before.

raise utg+1.
I defend bb with 2d3h8s, both draw two

I draw 4s qs.

I lead villain raises, both draw 1.

I draw 6h,

I check call,

pat, 1

check check,

I scoop. he shows 235

Needs a bit more details though. Like what else did villain show? Seems like a bad flop raise by him vs your lead either way though.
I think it's close whether we keep the 8 on 2nd after drawing the 4, especially after he raises. As he's more likely to have a made badugi already after he raises.
I think the river check is probably fine, given that when we pat, after he raised flop and was 1 twice, we are semi-likely getting freerolled on 3rd, and it's pretty surprising that he didn't have a made badugi already.
So overall I think it's fine.

NH, there is nothing wrong w erring on the passive side against unknowns when the decision is close. It looks like he has a badugi and 1 cd deuce draw after raising your lead.

Take note that villain will raise strong 3 cd badugi w 1 cd deuce draws in position. You can pretty much label him a LAG after this one hand sample, which is nice.

As played, I think it's perfectly fine.

If you lead the river it doesn't really achieve anything because the times he's calling he's usually getting at least half the pot or scooping. And if he raises, you're definitely beat for one half of the pot, if not both.

And yes there are times where he might call with a worse 3-card or say a 86532 low, but in the long run I think it's a bad play leading out into a one draw who probably holds 23(4)5(X).

Flop:
Hero: Would x/r flop instead of lead. Even though both drew 2, UTG1 3cd will be significantly stronger than BBdefend 3cd, and UTG1 should be cbetting a lot. Meanwhile, our hand is a lot stronger than a UTG1 cbet range.
Villain: Raising the lead seems fine to me. We can't only raise with badugis. Raising with (235)7 for value IP is not too laggy -- can still freeroll many made 8s/7s.
Hero: can't b/3b for value; call is standard. Ditching the 8 is crazy IMO since we still have scoop potential with (234)8, eg vs aforementioned (235)7 hands, or made 8s.

Turn:
Hero: Since villain raised and drew one, gotta weight his range towards badugis. Passive calldown looks fine.

I think that x-raising flop is likely too aggressive, unless he somehow bets 100% when unimproved. Most are only going to bet if they improve after 2 vs 2.

And I definitely don't think that ditching the 8 is crazy. Given that his flop-raising range is mostly made up of made badugis, and it's good for us to be getting 2 draws of 2 cards at a (better) badugi. It's at least close.

Do not like c/r flop, we pay absolute maximum if behind or being freerolled. We are doing v poorly vs complete hands even quite rough ones, but considering complete range I don't like ditching the 8. Lead vs c/c on flop is close since we will induce bets from weaker range on subsequent streets by playing passively and we are drawing smooth enough that we could c/r 8/8+ and be safe in doing so, and we often have just enough showdown by the river to take passive line the whole way. Argument for lead is player is unknown and we get value from UI weaker 3-card hands that might not c-bet but will certainly call. Turn c/c fine because we can c/r better hands as mentioned but will freeze some worse hands into patting. Turn bet D1 should be a badugi or top-tier tri/1cd so passive river also fine.

Is this standard? I feel UTG1 should be cbetting a decent portion of UI hands vs BBdef. Remember he's getting 4.5-1 on an immediate bluff.

Assume BB flats all 3cd hands. He'll still have a lot of rough 3cd hands some that aren't even tris. BB is 57% (16 outs) to improve to a 4cd 8, plus some other equity in making a pat 9 or T/T or weak badugi. Some 4cd 8s BB makes still suck and still would not call a cbet. Sometimes BB improves to a playable tri, or has an UI tri. Add it all up, and how often does BB not improve and have to fold to a cbet? Pretty close to 18%. Add in the fact that UTG1 has position, and most BBs aren't sophisticated enough to have a x/r bluff range, and I'd think UTG1 shoud barrel a lot of the time even when he doesn't improve.

If we began by drawing three then I think there may be value in a c/r with our exact hand because villain will naturally have wider cbet range, but in 2:2 situations villain can't expect us to fold anything so he's mostly betting badugis (against which we're in bad shape) and better tri + 1cd, which is basically our hand. On balance I don't mind paying a bet and vs some B/C is optimal but I don't want extra action from an unknown holding an incomplete hand here.

In every live game I've played BB is (at least) calling a cbet very close to 100% and (obv depending on total range) may be correct to do so HU, ie not in jeopardy of a raise from a third man.

Again, this looks wrong to me. It's especially bad in conjunction with Hero Value's assertion that BB usually only cbets on improvement. I can't in any way imagine both can be right.

UTG1 range will be pretty tight. I strongly think there are many hands BB should be defending PF that should be folding even to the small cbet unimproved. Candidates:
weak tris. 346r / 456r. Prospects for the low are very poor. Current tri is very marginal, and even if ahead in a RIO spot.
weak non-tris. (24)6 / (34)8; Prospects for the low are better, but a lot tougher to catch up on the badugi.

Folding those hands after first draw would be really really bad.

Let's pick on easily the worst of the hands i mentioned: 456r. If we go with HV/electrical, UTG1 has basically always improved to a 1cd draw. How do you rate your chances at winning the low? And current and future prospect of winning the badugi? Can you explain why folding this after first draw UI is really really bad.

In any TD game the odds for another small bet OTF are so good that with any hand correct to take a flop peeling the flop is normal. If you took a flier defending 25KKK or something and caught all bad cards then folding OTF is obviously fine given how badly we do against a range of legit 3-piece opening hands and those that have improved, but I've learned I have to play with the presumption people won't fold :2 hands on the flop.

There hasn't been enough work done publicly for me to cite a source, but by observing the play of the biggest winners in the games I play, I think at least in a live context this is either correct in a vacuum, or a proper exploit for these games.

I'm not easily swayed by the appeal to expert argument.

I'm asking you (pl) to consider the bottom of your BBdef range. How does it do UI against a UTG1 range that has almost always improved. We're so far behind for one half of the pot, and still behind for the other half. Also OOP, always drawing rough.

Given that we're getting 5.5:1 on a call we can be pretty far behind and still have an obvious call. We only need 18% equity to call profitably so even if we're drawing dead for half the pot, we can be almost a 2:1 dog for the other half and still break even.

Also, if the strategy is to call the flop nearly 100% we preserve ambiguity about our opening range and are automatically balanced, assuming our defending range is constructed well enough that we will occasionally be able to c/r the flop to earn extra.

I'm not certain this is correct, but it looks like it is, and more importantly this is standard play and we need to contend with that strategically.

Btw I didn't assert that people only ever cbet after improving. But most of the tighter people play like that. And I'm not saying it's bad to cbet your strong UI tris. But either way, a large % of someone's cbet range is going to be with them having improved, after 2 vs 2.
And yeah, I basically don't ever expect the bb to fold the flop after 2 vs 2 and 1 cbet.
This.
Yeah I agree with basically all of this, except the bold is confusing to me. As you initially said "calling the flop", and then "defending range" as though we are the bb, but also say "our opening range" as if we are the utg player? I would have thought that they would be separate points, but as they're in the same sentence, how do we have an opening range if we are the bb?

"Opening" should be "defending." Sorry.

Ah ok, got it. In which case, yeah I agree with all of that.