Villain is the same in both hands, I've only played with him like 50 hands, he seems to open a bit light, but nothing else out of ordinary yet.

Hand 1:

Villain opens LJ, I 3bet KQo in CO, all others fold.

Flop: QQ6 rainbow. He check-raises, I call.
Turn: 3 (rainbow). He check-raises, I ?


Hand 2:

Villain opens BUT, I call in BB with 55.

Flop: 875 monotone. He checks-back.
Turn: T. I bet, he raises, I?

Help me not be too weak or too spewy, thank you for your thoughts.

Hand 1: without a better read and as played i would call turn. Call river, or b/c river. Just not a board where many lesser hands will be c/r turn here.

Hand 2: 3b turn

Given villain's lines (out of tempo check and flop check back), i would adjust somewhat in future: e.g. hand 1 you can 3b flop and hand 2 you can donk flop.

hand 1 i call and let him c/r me on river. hand 2 i 3bet.

Hand1: Why didn't you 3 bet the flop? I like putting more bets on the flop then the turn.

Hand2: 3bet. River, B/C

I don't dislike delaying some Qx, if we're planning to raise hands like JJ OTT as well. I'd be more apt to fastplay this queen if I were to have a b3b range; too strong not to. Of course, fastplay has the added benefit of making a lot of thinking players immediately remove Qx from your range, which is nice.

Hand 2 is perfect.

I'd xr turn in hand 2 and probably call and raise river in hand one depending just how light he opens preflop.

I 3 bet turn in both

I think your turn 3bet range is way too strong in hand 1

You mean his range is too strong like he should 3-bet way more, or his range is too weak like he shouldn't be 3-betting KQ?

Like any hand he 3bets on the turn is going to be a super strong hand. This is probably the worst hand he would 3bet given positions and action.

Now I can see an argument for 3betting the strongest part of our range (hands that want more action) exploitively on the turn but with hands that want exactly 4 bets on the big streets I prefer waiting until the river for a couple reasons: 1. In case opponent is spazz bluffing or taking a weird xrf line we get one more bet out of him 2. We strengthen the range with which we get to the river. 3. We are more likely to get reraised by a hand that barely has us beat on the turn than the river.

So assuming an unassuming river (like no K or A that might make him think we rivered the overfull), wouldn't his river 3-betting range be more or less his turn 4-betting range? And we have outs on the turn to 66 and AQ.

Hand 1) I bet/3b. I would CR hands that I only want two bets to go in with. Obviously this hand is strong enough to b/3b and I would expect the T to hit a decent portion of villains check back range.

Hand 2) I like b/c on turn and raise river for reasons already stated.

Yes but I don't see how that counters my argument.

I can't seem to find any stated reasons for calling here. The villain could be raising the board scare, or assuming that that is what hero is betting, and his range could include any hand with a 9 or maybe even a 6. The river might be too late to get the extra bet.

I somehow mixed up the hands. My response for hand 1 was meant for hand 2 and response for two meant for 1.

Sorry about that!

I'd be surprised to see him 3bet a blank river with AQ... which agrees with point 3 of OTR's argument that hands 1-ponting us are more likely to get an extra bet in on the turn vs us than the river.

Without having read the other responses yet, I would have 3-bet both of them.

Edit: and after having read the responses, that's still what I would do. But I really like the c/r turn in hand 2 idea.

In hand 1, I tend to just fold this hand preflop. Suited, go for it but unsuited we are significantly behind. Are we getting involved here mainly because of our read that after 50 hands of history with this villain he "seems to open a bit light"? In my game there are some extremely strong LAG style players where I feel it would be a mistake to play this hand against them even though their opening ranges are slightly wider than normal.

As played, again, in my midstakes game this situation on the turn is closer to a bet/fold than a bet/3bet against most typical players. People are just not taking this line against someone who just 3bet them preflop unless they are holding at least AQ. They are flat out telling you that AA is no good -- and this is virtually never a bluff.

Hand 2 is somewhat tricky without any history with the opponent since some opponents pretty much only check back the flop with monsters as a goofy sort of slow play. But against a more typical check back range this is a pretty clear turn 3bet although we hate to be 4bet here and face a river bet on an unpaired board since the villain's range will quickly converge at a weak draw that just made the nut straight on the turn. You'd probably have to vomit and call down with a hand this strong though.

I love dry-flop analyses like Hand 1.

My thoughts:

Humans play dry flops really terribly. People fold too much, or make it obvious when they have a SD hand. Some bet too much, or bluff into what is obviously a SD hand. Most don't bluff raise enough on earlier streets.

Flop action is whatever -- both players still have a pretty wide range.

After Hero leads turn, villain should rarely flat call. If he does, his range will be transparently SDV hands, and Hero will own him. So he needs to mostly raise or fold --> a wide-ish raising range.

Now, after villain raises, if hero flats on the turn, it is obvious HE has a SD hand (save a few unlikely gutshots). So now hero should have a wide 3b-range.

etc etc, with a lot of r/f'ing going on.


Though, chances are, none of this applies, and we should just exploit whatever leak we think is most likely.

So if they both had A6, you're saying there should be at least 3-bets put in on the turn if they both play it correctly?

Hey rob,

Long time no see or talk! Hope all is well buddy.

Hand 1: I call then raise the river or get checkraised again. Folding is obv not an option and by 3 betting you open yourself up to getting 4 bet by every better Hand or making some worse hands fold.

Hand 2: bet 3 bet or check raise. If I dont know the guy I'm more likely to bet because I dont trust most people to bet the turn, and a ten isnt usually a card they will be trying to represent. The check back on the flop usually means they have a hand that they at least want to see a river with so I think there are quite a few hands he would call the turn with that he wouldn't bet himself. I think check raising is a superior overall line because you can occasionally force some spazzy semibluffs or pure bluffs and I think it's important to show that checking twice out of position doesn't always mean youre giving up. Obviously check raising cant work if the guy doesn't bet though.

thank you for the thoughts drbk, i hope ur well too, hope to see you down the road/sure i will