Not sure why we think it's likely to check through either.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It's hard for them to have many sets either considering we hold two pair. I get the impression some of the arguments are being skewed by the fact we know SB check raises the flop. There's zero strength shown pre and there's little reason to assume when it checks to the OP if he does too that the BTN will cbet in a three way pot when we crush the board. BTN never has an overpair and we block top pair combos. And why aren't we good if we get check raised? We have a fairly decent hand.

BTN makes a min raise steal attempt pre so I never expect him to have an overpair, SB has already checked, and our hand blocks a number of hands that make pairs/sets. I don't expect the BTN to make a weak raise to steal blinds then decide to start bluffing at the pot when he gets two calls.

Not sure how it plays on ignition, but on party/stars people have a standard sizing from every position and if it's a min-raise button they'll open their whole range for that size, otherwise it's clearly exploitable (obvs ignition is different), I would assign all overpairs and sets in villains range here. imo you're giving too much weight on the fact that villain min-raised pre.

The other issue is it makes our checking range weak and our x/r frequency decreases allowing villain to value bet thinner and play better vs our checking range, which is important on a site where you can get history with villains and at a stake where people may begin to exploit you for this. Also our range is far weaker to begin with (maybe only 1 set, no AJ/KJ, no overpairs) therefore in theory we should check.

I realize people don't always open for 3x. Years ago the standard was 4x. The game changes and every site has minor differences. But I strongly doubt the universal opening size in the micros on any site is 2x or 2.2x etc. Someone find me a hand in the micros where the poster opens the BTN for 2x with a premium hand and isn't told to make it larger. Actually just open any thread in this sub forum and I guarantee the standard open is larger than a min raise.

Also the idea that the majority of players are exploiting player inconsistencies at these limits is hard to believe. Rarely does anyone have more than a few hundred hands on an opponent which is hardly enough for those stats to start having significant value. Regardless most players don't think much beyond the strength of their own hand at 25nl. Too many people are worried about balance down here. It's not that complicated in the micros.

I wasn't debating what sizing we should use from BTN, just stating that opening overpairs with a larger size than our standard is bad and typically all competent players at micros aren't doing this.

Again maybe its the site you play on but on 25NL stars people are definitely thinking about far more than just their strength on their own hand. I said in my original post that vs fish this is fine for this exact reason, but at 25NL stars it's more likely people recognise and exploit this. You don't need thousands of hands here to exploit, if hero showdowns once with J7s on this board, we can then assume hero is doing this on all similar middling type of boards with two pair until we find otherwise.

I usually don't donk much myself but since sb is a rec this is a good spot to donk.

So leading flop is imo the best flopplay.

I realize you were suggesting if this was the BTN's standard open from this seat he would do so with AA/T9s/66 and so on. If that were the case then sure, we clearly can't assign weakness if this is his default across the board. But I feel pretty confident stating min-raises from the button on PokerStars, Party Poker, Ignition etc aren't what the majority of the pool is doing. Seems the hands people are posting daily would support that. Of course nothing is 100% and certain players will vary. On Ignition there are people who type in a 2.5bb raise from any position. It's probably about 2-5% of the pool.

I think we've gone off into our own debate. The piece, in my opinion, that's important is if we have reason to believe it will check around we should lead with our two pair in this spot, on this board. If it comes K82 I would be more inclined to check. On a J97 board I don't want it to check around.

I dont know why it checking around is such a bad thing anyway. I mean, say we check and villain fires 3 barrels I'm only just about happy to call it off (on a good run out). As we can see, we're really not happy playing this hand for big money so I can't see why we'd want to force it that way.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I don't think the question is IF it's bad. It is a question of what play makes us the most money. By not leading flop you miss value from the fish.

We got raised this time But that is not the most common thing and it is possible that advises against donking flop in the thread is biased from the outcome of this hand.

How often do people fire multiple barrel bluffs in a multi-way pot? It sounds like that's what you're hoping for?

Problem is we're both arguing points from an unknown position. We don't know exactly what either opponent will do. If my read at the time is that neither opponent has shown strength on a previous street and I have a good hand on a connected board I'm going to bet when facing more than one opponent. The more people in the pot the less equity we have and the more likely that one of the two can call a bet with a worse hand. If they're on a draw I believe they're more likely to take a free card when it's not heads up. For that reason I would elect to put out a bet and not allow them a free one.

Based on the texture of the flop and preflop action I think it's reasonable to think one of the two can have combos that improve to straights. If that's the case it's seems pretty obvious why letting it check around would be a bad thing.