So I have a hand close to the bottom of my range. Yet I am IP, and the 3bet is only around 3x. If it was 4x I would fold, but I was considering whether or not I can call 3x when I am IP and i have a hand like 65s, which is much easier to play IP vs V 3bet range than say AJo.

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: 118.2 BB (VPIP: 16.67, PFR: 14.58, 3Bet Preflop: 5.26, Hands: 51)
SB: 107.6 BB (VPIP: 25.00, PFR: 15.00, 3Bet Preflop: 5.00, Hands: 40)
BB: 119.6 BB (VPIP: 39.10, PFR: 25.00, 3Bet Preflop: 12.86, Hands: 161)
UTG: 176.4 BB (VPIP: 17.62, PFR: 13.11, 3Bet Preflop: 7.69, Hands: 248)
MP: 121.6 BB (VPIP: 23.73, PFR: 17.51, 3Bet Preflop: 6.94, Hands: 182)
Hero (CO): 247.8 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 6 5

fold, fold, Hero raises to 3 BB, fold, fold, BB raises to 9.4 BB,

You opened this hand so you are comfortable playing it post flop.
Sizing is not that big and are IP.
Everything you mentioned!
It's an easy call IMO.

Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

+1 and also great implied odds too imo

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

4x is a big sizing, about 10BB is more standard imo.

65s should be an easy fold as you said yourself it's the bottom of your range. 65s is easier post because it misses lots of flops and folding a pair of 5s appears easier than folding TPTK. Unless you're aggressive and have a big edge postflop I would recommend calling hands with far more equity e.g. ATs/AJs/KQs before 65s here.

I actually disagree with you a lot.
And your own words are contradicting eachother. Can you flop TPTK with 65? But you can flop TPGK with AT-AQ,KT-KQ,QT-QJ
Playing Big card are tougher than small cards... There are huge RIO with these hands that a lot of people with poor post-flop play will make huge mistakes with them (and we - as winning players for example - are making money off of that in micros)
You can play them very straight forwardly and 65s has a lot more nut potential than ATo,KJo etc..
You will hit a playable board 1 out of 5, so 20% of the time.(24% to be exact)
If you can get paid for 1/4 of stack when you hit, you can call even if your opponent shoves you AA!
I'm more inclined to defend 65s rather than ATo or KJo to a 3bet IP. But of course everything would be villain dependent.


Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

You misunderstood me. e.g. say we are facing a double barrel in a 3BP on A522, 65s and AT here are of similar value as they're both bluff catchers, the difference is folding a 5 seems far easier than folding an A here therefore 'easier to play postflop', although clearly calling with an A here is far better as it blocks villain value range and has more equity vs bluffing range (e.g. KQ has 0 equity, while it has 12% equity vs 65s). 65s just seems easier postflop because we x/f so much. Say we never call ATs, only weak SCs, we'll fold wayy too much of our range on flops/turns and become way too weak postflop.

I'll admit there are RIO with most broadways, but if we are good enough to play 65s we should be able to minimise RIO. Did I ever mention calling ATo? 65s has just as bad RIO with larger flushes which will be in far larger pots and far harder to get away than TPBK.

Compare the amount of times you get money from IO, to the amount of times you call flop to fold turns or straight out x/f flops, personally I don't like hands that I call preflop only to x/f 80% of flops. If you're capable enough postflop as I said in my OP, possibly it's profitable you'll need a sample to see.

We dont have to play every hand to 3b. Here it is close I would rather fold and cover low flops with pps and Axs.

I understand what you're saying and I too would default fold 65s CO vs BB. 65s isn't a hand that you fold often on flops though. Turns sure, but 65s flops draws too often to fold more than 60%. Another thing with your post is that you suggest ATs as a replacement for 65s. They're not the same category, no one is ever folding ATs here. I don't know why you recommended those instead of comparable hands like J9s or A6s.

Wisdom.

I'd prefer flatting the 65s vs a tighter 3b who can't fold post flop as opposed to a 12% 3b who may or may not pay us off. The question I ask is "Will I get paid?" Answer = no or IDK, then fold. When answer = yes, then flat. If answer is V is a 3b monkey then 4b to 21-22BB.

This post I understand and agree a lot more.
Thumbs Up bro

Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

And this is the exact way I play it. (Or at least try to play it)

Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

I got the 80% from Mohsen, just assumed it was correct didn't check it.

Personally, I defend the minimum I need to vs a 3B to prevent villain profiting (just did it from the start when I was poor postflop at start of playing and haven't altered ranges yet) so ngl I'm not exacting sure the extent of how wide we can profitably defend, although 65s seems unlikely. I understand your point, all these hands you've stated though seem marginally profitable compared to QJs/98s/KJs etc and seems like we are always trying to make them profitable by playing optimally postflop rather than being clearly profitable postflop with postflop mistakes (given OP is 5NL player).

why nobody mentioned bb is a fish and we are 120bb deep. In this case its an easy call

It's certainly possible for this call to be +EV, but I wouldn't say that it's an easy call. There are definitely some positive factors, such as having position and a hand that realizes equity very well, but there are just as many negative ones, such as there being a high likelihood of having low fold equity postflop, and the fact that we're going to have one hell of a time putting this villain on a range.

I think this becomes closer to an easy call when we have a villain who's overly aggressive preflop, but more passive postflop. I'd rather defend a little tighter against a possible aggro fish. I don't think we need to be defending ~60% of our opening range by default anyway.