Ehhh, I wouldn't say 90% of his range is air, or even a majority of his range. The situations are not analogous. Floating a smallish bet IP HU is not at all similar to floating a large bet multiway with players behind who have position on you. But I expect him to do a lot of barreling for us, whether he has J9 or 78 or Qx. Another idea might be to bet 30% pot and hopes that it serves as irresistible bait for him to raise.

^Yeah that's the thing, it'd be a really weird float with air otf with 3 deep players behind him. It seems unlikely he's calling this cbet as wide as previously given his description, but OP would be a better judge of this.

I like a small turn bet that'll keep his marginal hands and any gutshots in, and give him the chance to bluff raise (or think he's raising for value with Qx).

In this lineup of cool kids, my standard open would be 15. Same callers to the flop, now you can bet like 60, same caller to the turn. Difference is now SPR is like 2.4 instead of 4.2, much easier to get stacks in with huge hands for a simple difference of 5 measly dollars on your opens.

Turn I like checking, let him hang himself with the tons of hands he has here that aren't Qx. When you bet, I'd argue that you look super strong and only Qx+ continues, whereas if you check you open the door for him to put money in with who knows what (and Qx is getting the money in either way).

I'd bet the turn. I think if you try a c/r you would only get 1 street of value, I'd rather do that on the river than on the turn, higher chance he actually has a hand after the river or board runs out in a way that he can represent a hand.

Based on op he seems more likely to bet when checked to than to raise a weak bet, so I'd bet big on turn, ~$85.

If we check turn, I assume it's to c/c turn and c/r river. Once we call turn, saying we see the QQ and we're calling anyway, I think it's less likely he'll bluff the river as well... I'd rather give him the opportunity to bluff just 1 street vs 2.

One could argue our turn bet looks stronger than turn c/c, but I actually don't think so... we're not bluffing with a c/c, but we could be by betting.

These (especially bolded) were my thinking, and frankly I really don't understand the logic those who wanted to bet big (betting small hoping to get raised could have been interesting)..

Turn ($115): Q82 Q Hero checks. Villain bets $65, hero?? I think this was the most interesting part of the hand.

Check again and let him bet. Hate quoting myself but here:

This will let us check raise big or maybe even put him all-in.

Late to the game here but I would have definitely checked this turn and let him bet and I would NOT have check raised. I would just call now as checkraising here will likely make him fold all his bluffs which we don't want. I call and pray for a river and THEN I would CRAI.

If you call here, the pot will be 245 and Villain will have 440 behind.

I can't get his stack in with only one bet on the river.

I wanted to solve this problem by betting the turn, but as played I think I'm calling and then leading small on the river--no matter what it is, unless it's a Q or 8. It still seems more likely to me that I'm going to get his whole stack via him putting most of it in for me (either as a bluff or via him value betting a worse hand) than by making him call off 2 big bets.

My plan was to x/shove river (non Q or 8) so I'm sticking with that. All his bluffs are still available to him OTR and stacks go in if he has a Q.

The goal of NLHE is not to win stacks, despite what many here seem to believe.

If he has QX, $ will go in. 8Xcc probably calling a raise also. If he has anything else, not sure we can count on another bet from him.

Sticking with plan … raise to $165.

I think many people, including some authors of a book who's guidelines are used often around here, would disagree with that statement.

Turn ($115): Q82 Q Hero checks. Villain bets $65. Hero call.

This was a tough decision, but a key fact for me was that V (to his credit) value bets pretty thin, so I knew if he did have a Q, he would bet river no matter what the river card was or his kicker was. Since I still thought a large chunk of his range was air, I thought keeping that part of his range in on the river was crucial.

It's kind of weird, but against this villain, I really believe (in the short-term) playing as an "opposite player" is best, where I check strength and bet weakness. In fact, with my air, I think a bet flop, c/r turn line is actually pretty solid against him because he folds a lot of his air, which makes up a big portion of his range. Ed Miller talks about this in his LAG section on Playing the Player: denying information is crucial against these villains.

River ($245): Q82 Q 4

I know most of the commenters have already spelled out how they would play the rest of the hand, but any merit to leading out here?

I don't think so. Clubs were backdoor and given you were PFR and led flop, you have very few club draws in your range. It is also a really good bluff card for V to try to get you off of Qx here, so let him try. Your value here is that V can have a ton of value hands that you beat (Qx, clubs), he v-bets thin so let him v-own himself, AND he likely will barrel all hands with zero equity given you have played passive. Don't take away his ability to do all these things when you have basically the buts on this board.

Stick to the plan and CRAI once he bets the river. Print $. Wheeeeee......

The merit in leading the river is that if Villain has backed into a flush, he could raise. I think you're more likely to stack Villain if he has a flush by leading out than by check/raising--a check/raise looks like you've been trapping him all along, which of course you have been.

If you'd rather try to get an extra bluff out of his non-flush hands (like busted gutshots), then checking makes sense--unless you think he'd bluff-raise if you led into him. That is really rare though.

If Villain has a queen, I think if you lead river he may not raise, but if you check/raise he may fold. (I don't think he'd check a queen.)

Exactly. The goal in NLHE cash games is to win the most money, not stacks.

I think the above is an important point. 95% of the time this guy doesn't have a hand, so I'm just trying to extract an extra (small) bet or two from the guy, which from an EV perspective is more profitable than ignoring that and just aiming to stack him the 5% of the time he does show up with a hand.

Let's finish this one off...

River ($245): Q82 Q 4 Hero checks. V bets $95. Hero??

I didn't see any point to leading out since I was conifident he would bet any queen or clubs for value, as well as a whole lot of other hands as bluffs.

That is also my thought process, wich i believe is how we should look at things. Its so easy to loose huge value if we only focus on stacking our villain everytime we have a nutted hand. Lets say he is bluffing with air here/weak garbage, and we get him to put in another $95 on the river the majority of the time when he have a bluffing combo, then that is skyrocketing our EV against this guy compared to betting ourself and he is forced to fold everything but his strong made hands.

Obviously at this point we have milked all we can from the bluff portion of his range (well played OP), so we can aim to get paid the most from his strong made hands that we beat either trip Q or a flush. So i would choose a size that is most likely to get paid off by both those hands. Some trip Q might find a fold if you go too big, but if he rivered a flush very very few villains is capable of folding to almost any sizing here.

Thanks for the thoughts.

To the bolded, c'mon give me some meat Isn't the literal answer to your question always going to be a min-raise? (But I don't think that's what you really mean)... What size would you use based on V's description?

Not sure if that's a response to my post, if so, what I'm saying is we can get stacks in if he has a Q, therefore what we should be doing is targeting the rest of his range to maximise value.

Pot is $340, villain has $345 behind after he bet $95? If so yeah OK I'm shoving now. I think he can get away from Qx though on this board so that messes my plan of getting paid with those hands

Well, its kind of hard to tell with this kind of player actually as you also may very well have experienced yourself- because they can have literally anything.

However, regarding sizing he went with i think an aggro lag like this usually would go bigger if he did have a flush. So if he have value, i think some sort of decent Qx is most likely, so for that matter a minraise or a little more than a minraise is the best if we target Qx in order to get a crying call.

If we shove for like $340 ish, i am afraid he may very well manage to get away from most of his Qx.

It was mostly to CallmeVernon. I think I shared your opinion on this hand.

I too many people ask the question “how do I stack this guy,” rather than “how do I maximize value against his range?”

Shove the river. We basically have the nuts and a worse hand won’t 3-bet a smaller aizing. Generally allin is the best sizing in this type of situation unless we have specific knowledgfw that the opponent overfolds to allin but won’t to a smaller sizing.

I like these kinds of hands, I see a lot of games around the Bay Area that play super aggro like this.

Standard for me would be to fold 22 preflop but opening can't be that big a mistake. F/T/R are fine. We want to shove the river now.

Given description of villain I don't think it's a stone lock we stack his queen, but we have to try, and if he somehow has a flush we should definitely get paid.