Effective stack is $50. Villain is 39/10.

Villain opens MP of a 6-handed game to $1.75, I 3-bet button with KQJT to $5.75, blinds fold, MP calls

Flop is K67
check, I'm unsure if this is a bet or not because against such a seemingly passive player, this is a fold if raised. But, he seems unlikely to have a monster since I block Kings. He could have a double pair with the bottom cards (7799, not 67xx) or a hand like 789T, 6789, K789ds. I'm also giving away a lot of equity if I b/f.

It also feels like a mandatory 3-bet but is it really against a passive player? The hand is very dominated vs a 4-bet.

Hand is great to 3bet pre, looks fine imo.

From a balance perspective this hand is a perfect candidate for a check-back as you should have a balance of cbets and check backs on this board with both strong and weak hands. Against pretty much everything besides top set we have a tonne of equity with some really clean 2p outs, 2 bdfd and some bdsd equity. I don't mind betting here at all, but it can suck to get x/r'ed here because as said above we have a tonne of equity but I'm not sure how many hands are x/r'ing this flop besides sets and some 2p but I think even a lot of those combos will just x/c since the flop is relatively dry and there aren't a tonne of turns those hands really hate.

It's better for you as far as betting goes if your opponent check-raises a strong range and you're forced to fold than a wide range (within reason) against which you have a slightly +EV stack-off.

The idea that having to fold against a raise is a reason to check decent hands is a common misconception*. It's only true when you are facing a raise frequently, which simply won't be the case when you have Kxxx on this board.


*An extreme example: Iirc, someone implied that they'd check back 77xx on 872r (or something like that) if they knew their opponent would only x/r 88xx.

EV-wise, having to fold is identical to a neutral-EV (after the bet) stackoff. Slightly profitable stackoffs aren't a ton better. In general, you'd rather b/f (but face a raise infrequently) than have a slightly profitable b/gii (but face a raise a lot more frequently). Against passive players, the correct strategy is often "bet wide; fold to a raise often, the rare times that it happens".

All else equal, you'd rather be up against a player who 4-bets a tight range (like AA only) than against a more aggressive player who 4-bets a wider range. This is true even if your equity is better against the wider range.

The reason you might want to flat here is simply that a ~10% opening range is really strong, and you'll face a 4-bet an absolute crapton even if your opponent is a passive (all-AA) 4-bettor. It's sort of hard for KQJTds to be dominated against a 4-bet range (it's still in tolerable shape against an AA + premium-KK range). But if it were, as would be the case if your opponent 4-bet only double-suited AA, your willingness to 3-bet should go up, because you'd face a 4-bet a lot less frequently.