1/3 NLHE
$250 stack effective

Villain is a OWG, long beard and glasses. He is steaming against Hero because we won a big pot of him when we called a big shove from him on the flop when we had an open ended straight draw versus his FD.

4 players limp to the flop. Villain is in MP, and Hero is in the SB with 22

Pot is $12
FLOP 6 5 2
Hero leads for $10
Every one folds. Villain calls.

Pot is $32
TURN 6 5 2 Q
Hero Checks.
Villain bets $25
Hero calls

Pot is $82
River is 6 5 2 QT

How would you proceed from here? Any issues with how hero has proceeded so far?

seems fine and every street seems wp so far.

x river.

most likely calling tbh vs a guy that's jamming a FD otf and steaming, tho not thrilled

I'd actually overbet the flop a tidge, with it being that wet and the pot so small. I go $15.

Def like calling OTT, as we can likely get his stack if he hit the flush and we fill up. If he doesn't have the flush, he may be afraid that we do, so he may slow down. I'd still probably call a bet of up to $50 OTR, though, given dynamics.

Agree with G, more on flop, even $18-$20, as FD and SD will call.

Turn - With the Qs, there really aren't many QX in his range. Maybe AsQx/KsQx if he's passive pre.

River - I'd expect V to slow down with hands like 65s, so a bet seems flushy more than anything else in his range. I might call a 1/2 PSB.

I agree with check river lots of hopeless junk can bet but will not call a bet.

I'm reminded here of the old cliche': "never go broke in a limped pot".

This flop board is way better for H SB range, so I'm struggling to understand what V has called with otf. That said, maybe bigger bet on flop is better against a wide range.

V's turn aggression suggests Qx with spade re-draws, two-pair vulnerable or made small flush vulnerable to H flush re-draw. I think V would have re-raised his sets on the flop. The flop flat skews the probability weight to V's two-pair and small flush combos.

Against many Vs, I would be tempted to down bet the river, repping a small flush betting for value. Given the board, V would just call with his vulnerable two under-pair combos and his occasional KsQ/QJs combos.

He would raise our river bet with most flushes, which I think is better for us. I'm concerned about taking a passive line and having to make a hero call if V jams or bets the pot.

A passive line under-realizes our equity against the hands from which we can extract value and opens us up to lots of bluffs. This is just a hypothesis and I could be very wrong, so if I am please let me know as I'm anxious to learn.

LLSNL Vs way under bluff rivers, especially when a FD is out.

x/call river.

I have no issues with the hand up until this point.

I would guess river is probably somewhere between a check/soulread and small blocking bet/fold (player dependent). ETA: Against a guy who was bluffing with his flush draw in history hand then I would lean to a more check/call bluffcatching line.

ETA#2: It's possible I might be a little gunshy thanks to having so few flopped sets actually end up being the winning hand recently, but I'm ok with our flop bet sizing. With 3rd set on a straight board, I'm just not as happy as building a huge pot when not committed. If I was committed or hand a stronger hand, I would definitely be on board with the flop overbet idea.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I like it so far. X/C river.

I like the flop bet and the check on the turn.

Check-call R...then celebrate wining another decent sized pot off that guy.

Bart Hansen sold me on the virtue of overbetting the flop slightly when we lead from the SB. People will be fairly inelastic, and we're only going to bet when we want to build a pot, so might as well go big. I like that you didn't bet some small amount, but I'd be looking to stick a solid $15 in.

I like the turn check. We can legitimately be beat now, hands we're doing well against like 76 (totally dead) will fold a lot now. Plus it's good to let angry guys have a chance to bluff.

River we obviously start with a check. No reason to do anything else. Now we should assess the size villain uses. I'm mostly calling.

AP Hero lead for $20 on the river, and Villain called with 83

The blocking bet on the river scared him into thinking we had a bigger flush (he said as much). I think if I had checked the river, he would have bet more than $20.

Agree with those that argued for a bigger bet on the flop. Why not get as much value on the flop when you probably have the best hand?

I think this V would have also raised two-pair combos on flop, so the call indicates, flush draw, straight draw, or pair plus gutter type hands. My live read was that he was flushing, but I also picked up on the "lets get this guy who sucked out on me" vibe. So I think him bluffing the river was a possibility if he didn't make his hand. As such I think the blocker bet saved me some money. Unlikely that he would raise me unless he has me beat.

Is there any good argument for check folding this river (say to a half PSB or more, for arguments sake)?

No way.

It's probably a mistake to be too results-oriented. In this case, the strategy I advocated and you implemented worked out pretty well and saved you money. But I don't think the case is closed at all. I hope there is additional critique of your line so we can learn more. It just worked in this case - We both could be very wrong against general Vs.

I don't think there is a case for check-folding because of his wide range. In fact, this was a key part of my reasoning in advocating the blocking bet. I figured he'd call down lighter than you could if you checked to him.