I imagine it is simply that if villain has QXXX, He'll likely call and have two cards to fill up with a higher boat. Hero has a big stack on the bubble and is content to fold to a scare card on the turn. I agree a raise is fine, but I like a call slightly better this deep.

To the OP, you say after the turn 2 you reassess and decide calling is again the right option. Why? Are you still planning to fold to scare cards on the river?

Having the nuts on the turn and now villain is even more likely to call if he picked up a low draw, seems like an insta-shove on the turn. Going to get called by plenty of worse hands, while on river you are going to have trouble getting value from some hands that would call turn shove. Wondering what your rationale was for calling instead of shoving.

call 3x is sooooo standard

I don't see any merit in playing this tight. Passing up a chance to get as many chips in as possible with the nuts when someone is looking at (best case) 9 outs twice, and who could realistically be drawing at 3 outs to a scoop (or even 1 out if he has 55), is really bad. Folding to any card over a 5 on the turn changes 9 outs (or fewer) into most of the deck being real or bluff outs, where the opponent won't even need to know he is bluffing. If you are going to play this tight, you should actually just fold the nuts on the flop, because almost every turn card is going to be a "scare" card and you're just giving away chips on the flop by flat calling.

I, and many others ITT have pointed out that the turn is a rather clear raise for protection. Not so much against a queen, but against a random low.

What is your range for raising then? Do you never have a full house if you just call? Do you fold AJJ3? AKK3?

As to your points, I'm not convinced:

If Villain is bluffing, he is allowed to continue bluffing if you just call but not many ppl will continue if you raise.

Any Q that is leading for half pot here is likely to continue the cards we are calling, and may well give away a lot of information based on sizing (Eg. betting bigger than half pot if he hits). Dito 55 played like this is more likely to lose more vs. a call than a raise IMO.

We don't fold all turn over cards, eg. we'd call any 678 without god like reads. And if villain is betting big on a K/J turn with a worse hands that would be worth noting for future hands.

Obviously it can't be too bad to say "we have the virtual nuts, raise" but I doubt it's the best play here.

Of course I fold those. Villain has either Qxxx or 55xx thee vast majority of the time here given the dynamics. And of course I am only raising a full house here. I'm not going to risk crippling my stack with three queens as the chip leader on a money bubble.

If he is bluffing into a dry side pot on a tourney bubble, he has to be a completely clueless moron. This is the only way calling could be better, but the vast majority of players, even total fish, aren't this stupid. That means he has Qxxx, 55xx, or at best a big pair. A big pair is shutting down on the turn after you call.

I disagree with this. If he is the kind of player who will fold to a raise on the flop, he will shut down on the turn with Qxxx unless he fills up, but maybe would bet out with 55. You don't know what kind of player he is though. Many, many players would call off the flop with Qxxx or 55 here.

Who are you responding to? I am disagreeing with the advice to flat call the flop rather than raise. I obviously agree with raising the turn.

i dont mind limping btn
but if you dont over shove pre you dont know how how to play nlo8 mtt (like close to all people itt)

Nobody specific, I just see that it's not clear for many people ITT.

What comes to your suggested strategy, the exploiting counter-strategy is not rocket science: bet a lot of hands with at least some equity (vs the all-in player) and fold when you raise i.e. doing exactly what you describe is 3D printing chips.

What hands have equity v. the all-in player on this board? Any Q, a pocket pair, and a 5. In other words not "a lot of hands." Do you bet a naked 5 in this spot? 22xx or 33xx? Also, please tell me how you are going to get enough experience with chip leader v. 2nd biggest stack on a tournament bubble with a paired board flop to figure out how to "exploit" the chip leader's penchant for only raising a full house in that spot.

What do you think the all-in players range is? Why do you think you need Q/5/pp to have decent equity? For example, A-high with backdoors has good/decent equity vs his range.

I'm just trying to point out that I don't think for example the mentioned AJJ3 is a snap fold at all against what I perceive a decent strategy. Also, it's not about having "enough experience" vs someone, it's about common strategy. If I bet a hand like AKT4 with a bdfd there I don't really care if he's raising only boat or just trips+, it's a fold anyway. It should be clear that you want to call the flop with your actual holding against this type of hand.

Something like Any A2, A3 or A4, any decent A5 or 23, any pocket pair over 7, any four cards above 9, any suited A with two cards above T, any two pair hand.

I'm not betting into a dry side pot with A high to protect what might theoretically be 40% HU equity in this spot.

Common strategy is definitely not to bet AKT4 into a dry side pot here. Do you really see people doing this, because I don't. A bet here is a Q, 55, AA or KK, 90+% of the time against a random player, particularly when they are playing against the chip leader. Random people play tight as hell on the bubble. There is no point in messing around with AJJ3. Also, are you firing a second barrel when you get called with AKT4? Doubt it. So how does flat calling get you more chips?

I think people are over thinking this hand. Basic poker winning strategy is to get more chips in when you have the best hand. The only reasons to flat call with the nuts are to slow-play or bluff induce. Against an average, random player, neither of those is going to work here, so there is no reason to deviate from basic strategy (i.e., raise with the nuts).

First of all, if you're folding all but like Q+, why wouldn't I bet AKT4 and get it HU?

More importantly is the question of how you win more by calling vs AKT4. What if the turn is a K, J, T, or 2? He won't lose any money on those cards? He probably should...(maybe not ten). You have a Queen and two Fives, so there are hardly any cards left that a guy can continue with when you raise, so you might as well call. What if the guy has an underpair and catches an underfull? You're basically freerolling to let him "catch" his 2-outter.

Why not shove flop? Serious question. Leverage big stack, avoid bad beat and allow low draw to call down for at least half. Callers get it in bad, you have redraws, and caller pays full price. 9/10 times I shove. 60+% winner here usually and if anyone calls bad, you accomplish your goal of eliminating a player.

And, thanks for posting. Also a first time poster, long time lurker.

Solid response, RolldUpTrips, saves me the trouble of writing exactly the same thing. Tripdooces, there are several posts already explaining the merits of calling vs raising the flop. If we are playing at such a low level where opponents never fold after they've bet, you should/could indeed shove flop for value. This is only assuming villain is calling super wide for whatever reason. The street where I like such thinking in this hand is the turn, because then villain has lots more hands with incentive to call (because there are a lot more hands with some equity) i.e. we can expect to get a lot of value, unlike on the flop, when many hands are in very poor shape against the type of hands our raise is representing (trips+).

The fact that he'd probably call our shove with his actual hand on the flop is not important.

You probably should, but what I am saying is that the 99%+ of players do not do this, so putting it into the betting range of a random player is foolhardy. This bet is a hand 90+% of the time.

This is the source of our disagreement, because in my experience his actual hand or 55 is what an average player has most of the time when leading here. Expanding the range of a random player to make it a game theoretical optimal betting range and making a decision based on that is foolhardy. I repeat my question, do you actually see a significant number of people betting this wide of range in bubble situations? I regularly see people checking down monsters.

If he has his actual hand or 55 it doesn't really matter if we raise or call, chips will go in anyway. If he has something else we should strongly prefer a call. I'm not arguing about GTO or anything similar, just applying something that I consider common sense.

I admit that I don't play a lot of low/medium-stakes MTTs. I don't think it's wrong to assume that people do indeed play very bad there in general. If their bet is always trips+ and they are planning to "go with it", Hero could as an exploit raise this hand, like I already said in my last post.

For me, arguing over the flop action is rather moot as it's very hard to find circumstances where raising would be much better than calling. Turn is slightly more interesting, but I guess nearly everyone agrees already that it's a clear raise.

Maybe. Because so many people in OP's shoes would slowplay Q5 and flat call a Q hoping to fill, a raise on the turn will look like either Q5 or a Q that filled up. I think it is a lot easier for the average player to fold 55 or an unfilled Q on the turn after a flat call than for them to fold to a raise on the flop.