Just got moved from weak table with mostly short stacks at MGMNH to table with two 1K+ stacks.

Villain 1: MAWM - very LAG/borderline spewy - two seats to my right - recently won huge pot with something like 47suited when rivered flush ($1,000)

Villain 2: MAWM (may have had accent - assumed he was from Europe) - Moderately loose and very aggressive - Seemed very competent ($1,000)

Hero: MAWM ($525)

OTTH:

I have been patient and not played any hands and basically just waiting for a good spot. I am dealt 22 in middle position and called $12 pre from V1 who is in early position. V2 raises to $40 from late position and V1 calls. I call figuring I am getting the proper implied odds of 15X since both villains have me covered and one is spewy and both are aggressive. Pot is $110ish

Flop is 3,5,8 rainbow.

V1 checks and I bet $80. V2 calls and V1 folds. My question is whether a c-bet in this situation is optimal. My general thinking at the time was: 1) I haven't played many hands so a cbet should get some respect; 2) the flop shouldn't have really hit anyone; 3) AK/AQ type hands could fold; and 4) Take the initiative rather than folding to likely c-bet from V2.

I'll describe the rest of the hand after getting some comments on the c-bet.

Thanks!!

That's not a c-bet. You called twice pre. V2 was the one who had an opportunity to c-bet. What you did (betting OOP into the PF raiser) is called a donk bet. That doesn't mean that only donks do it, but it is called that for a reason, and it is definitely a sometimes play.

Donking into a 3-bettor is iffy in most LLSNL games, as their range is big PP heavy. Against described V, I don't hate a bluff donk on this ragged board given your likely image, as it looks a lot like a set. If called, though, I just give up unless we actually do spike a set OTT.

I disagree that it looks like a set when he donks, particularly on a rainbow board. In general I think most flop donks are one pair hands, even when they are done by tightish players.. I would expect to see a lot of 8x and 66/77/99 if a rec donked here.

Particularly deeper, I think leading a hand like 45/67/A5 here has some merit as we have all the sets and v doesn’t, but with 22 I’m just check giving up.

Thanks very much for clarifying! For background, I'd classify myself as a rec that plays about once or sometimes twice a week. Winning player over the past two years (but the "profits" are modest!). Generally TAG style. Sometimes too aggressive. PhD in econ but not much help at the table!

+1 to this. I’d love this bet (both opportunity and size) if we’d held 76. We’d have nut outs when (often) called, our hand would be well-disguised, and we wouldn’t mind going 3 ways to the turn.

In this spot, and with 22, I really don’t like it. What are you hoping to accomplish? Folding out a reraiser *and* a caller, or getting called so you can draw to two outs? Neither sounds appetizing to me.

So you called pre-flop for implied odds but then bluff because you didn't hit?

I don't think you realize what implied odds means.

Totally fair point. I was hoping to take it down, capitalizing on my likely image at the time. But in retrospect, maybe it's only is a decent play heads up? This is the only point in the hand where I wasn't sure I played it reasonably well.

I do realize what implied odds means. In this instance, though, I decided not to give up on the flop. And it was possible that my $80 donk would have worked, but as noted, maybe it was not a good move in this 3-way spot.

What is your plan for the rest of the hand? Why do you consider folding vs V2 a bad thing? You have the chance to check and close the action, not that it matters with this hand, 22 is a terrible hand this is 100% a check fold

I wasn't closing the action - If I checked flop, V2 was closing the action since I was in between V1 and V2 position-wise. But I get your basic point.

BTW, you said you had just moved to this table so the fact that you were patient at the other table isn't relevant so point #1 doesn't apply as to why you bet.

While you may have the 15x to call the 3! pre, don't forget you have to beat two players and have the RIO of being potentially over-setted. I think it is much better to just get out of the way here.

C/f this flop with 4th pair and BD str8 draw only. 3! have every overpair in their range on this board (99-AA, 36 combos) and may even float you with Ace High as well. It just isn't a profitable spot to bluff.

Thanks, all good points. To clarify, I was being patient at the new table (I had moved over and basically folded all hands for about a half hour, while most of the players were very active) - It struck me as the sort of table that Vs would notice my lack of play. I may have been giving them too much credit. Also 22s is not the sort of hand to make a stand with, although I convinced myself that I would get paid off big time if I hit

So to wrap this up, turn was a 2. I bet $150, villain went all in, I called. River was an 8. So I ended up turning set and rivering a boat. And he had . . . QQ. Good outcome, obviously, but I was too aggressive on the flop.

you barely have odds to break even by calling the 3bet pre. just fold to it. You're basically set mining only. If the deuce doesn't come otf it's over. Anything after that is just luck.

Your flop bet is probably best looked at as a semi-bluff where the combination of fold equity, being ahead on the flop and chances of improving if you are behind combined make the bet plus EV. Not sure your bet was plus EV since your chance of improving was small.

One reason I really like to set mine with small pairs is that I know I'm not going to do anything stupid post-flop if I miss my set, as opposed to say 77-TT where we will often have 2nd pair/overpair vs a bigger pair. There may be exceptions (e.g. if we have a solid read on a player's bet sizing and we have him on AK in a HU pot) but as a general rule with small pairs it's no set, no bet.