$550 eff with V (very stationy pre but saw him fold TP2K to a large db earlier, plays straightforward and can be slowplaying at times, calls very wide preflop)

1 limp, BTN ($500) raises $11, H raises to $41 in SB with QQ, V calls in BB, all else fold

Flop ($93): Kc Tc 3s
Checks through (should I bet here?)

Turn ($93): 5h
Hero bets $50, V calls

River ($193): 7d
Hero ??

I'm not sure if river is a b/f or c/c. He will probably fold less than Kx to any bet, and will also probably not bluff if I check I think.

If your read is right, river is a c/f. You won't be getting value from any hands betting and villain shouldn't be bluffing missed clubs. If you're scared he may bluff then it's best to b/f. C/c is the worst of the options.

B/f would be terrible line if he's not going call worse but would bluff if checked to. Check-call would be the line to take.

Wat? That makes absolutely no sense.

It's close but I think I like b/f. I also kind of think you should be betting flop against a villain like this because there's plenty worse he can call with and checking flop just turns your hand face up so brutally. I'd rather slot this hand into how I play the rest of my range if possible.

QQ no club I bet flop around 40% pot, QQ w/ club I check.

Turn is just a check again. We have a lot of hands that give up this flop vs cold-caller from the BB, and he might stab turn pretty light. There also aren't that many bad rivers, and you can only get 1 street of value here.

AP, river I think we should c/c. He basically never has 2 pair+ here, and he's only repping Kx with a bet. You block KQs, and clubs/broadways like AJ missed.

How does it not make sense? If you know villain will value bet but you're not sure if villain will bluff then b/f is the best line. Spots like that are terrible to c/c because you'll just convince yourself you have to call because you've decided he could be bluffing compared to value betting which is a certainty. I shouldn't of worded it as scared, it's more like if you're unsure villain could be bluffing then b/f is better because it's more likely to protect against a range much heavier in value than bluffs if you c/c.

I based my action on hero's read which is villain probably won't bluff, in which case c/f is the best line.

I don't see any reason to bet this flop. OOP on a pretty wet flop,we are going to want a polarized cbetting range. we also want to pot control. Our hand doesn't need much protection. We are going to want a check/call range to protect our check/folds and this hand is perfect for that box. We have plenty of other hands to cbet for value/bluff... AK/TT/KQ/lots of draws.

That is super confused thinking. How often villain is bluffing is how you decide between c/c and c/f. You decide between b/f and c/c based on how often he calls worse when you bet vs how often he bluffs when you check. A higher chance of villain bluffing argues for c/c over b/f, once the decision is already made that you cannot fold the hand.

Let's say I tell you villain never bluffs and you decide what to do (either b/f or c/f, obviously never c/c). Now I tell you that actually, villain does bluff some arbitrary % of the time. You're now worried that villain will bluff you. This should NEVER change your decision to a b/f. Sometimes it was a b/f before and stays a b/f, because villain's call range is wide enough that that's still more +EV than c/c. Sometimes it changes your decision to a c/c (from either a b/f or a c/f). But it NEVER changes your decision from one of the other options to a b/f. So "because I thought villain may bluff" is never a reason to b/f, only sometimes a reason not to.

I understand you don't want to turn your hand face up, but cmon, we're playing vs a fish, so who cares? It's not like he's going to exploit us. Plus there aren't many bad turns.

Also, if you bet the flop, what's your plan going ahead in a bloated pot OOP? It would suck to see a blank turn and c/f. Why not invest the same amount by checking flop/betting turn which gives us information (since he checked back flop) and lighter calls at the same time?

I think we can and should bet flop against a competent reg, but against this guy, I don't see the point.

I'd be inclined to proceed just the opposite. Against a fun player, it's much less important to protect your checking range. If you bet this hand against a competent reg, your flop checks are going to be too much air.

[Emphasis mine]

The bluffing frequency of V (along with some other factors) can turn a c/f into a b/f.

Case 1:
Let's say V has us beaten 50% of the time and bets a PSB. He never bluffs. We always fold to a bet and our EV is 0.5P (the 50% of the time he checks back).

If we bet 1/3 pot, he'll call (or raise) with everything that beats us and fold everything else. EV of betting is 0.5 P - 0.5 * 1/3P = 0.33P.

c/f is the better option.

Case 2:
Now let's increase his bluffing frequency to 25%, still with a PSB. He's now betting 50% + 25% = 75% of the time. The EV of calling the bet is now 0 (50% of the time we lose P, 25% of the time we win 2P).

EV of either c/c or c/f is 0.25P.

As in case 1, if we bet 1/3 P, V will call with all that beat us and fold everything else. EV for that is still 0.33P

b/f is now the better option.

Increasing his bluff frequency has turned our decision from c/f to b/f.

(This was adapted from No Limit Hold 'Em, Theory and Practice by David Sklansky and Ed Miller Concept 4: sometimes you should bluff to stop a bluff, p. 246)

^ I can't say i read the book, but going from the post I'd say to take what the book says with a grain of salt. Lots of poker material is outdated

Fair enough. But the example pretty much stands on its own merits (unless I missed something or did math wrong).

There are at least some spots in which bluffing to stop a bluff has better EV. Whether those spots actually come up, and how often is a different matter.

Right, I should have said that it can never turn a c/f into a value b/f. TBH I thought that was clear from context

What kind of range do you put him on when he takes a bit 3bet to the face preflop?

I might cbet this flop. We're not exactly WA/WB due to the combination of draws (flush + gutshot + overcard). Nothing big, like maybe $35 (although $50 is probably fine too) just to see if that accomplishes the goal of ending the hand now.

As played I think I would also bet the turn.

Board is drawy so you'd think Villain would have either bet the flop or raised the turn if he had a better hand, with possibly the lone exception of KQ/KJ. At this point, I'm fairly convinced I'm ahead, and therefore go for value while setting my own price. I'd go quite small so that weakish hands can pay of a bet, maybe even a "same bet" of $50. Easy fold if raised vs this guy as he's never getting out of line.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I don't like to do the same bet bs when I have a weak hand as I'm afraid it might give him rope to bluffraise.

Yeah, the more he is capable of attacking weakness of a "same bet" then the more we can't do that, and the more we should be happy just showing down and not letting him steal our pot.

GopponentdependentG