2/5, effective stacks ~800. I've only been at table for three orbits and Villain has been away for maybe 15 of those hands going to get food. He looks very much a recreational player that overvalues preflop hands, but not especially spewy. Relevant to this hand, villain was present when I 3bet the best player at the table OOP, and led ~85% pot on a 964hh flop to win. Didn't show.

Hero is on button with Kd Ks. One limp, and Villain raises to $25 from MP1. Folds around and I raise to $75. Villain tanks for 30 seconds before calling. I'd roughly estimate his opening range at ATs+, AJo+, KQs, 99+. No real insight into his 3b calling range, but it obviously tightens up. Maybe AQ+, 99+?

Flop: Ac 9d 5d. Pot: 150

Villain checks, I check.

Turn: 4d.

Villain bets $50, I call.

River: 9s. Pot: 250

Villain checks, I bet $95.

Obviously checking behind is fine here, but given our weak line, and villain's equally weak line, is it worth targeting the TT-QQ part of his range? Are we substantially discounting Ax given his river check? The Ad could be part of his range on the turn, but looks less likely by the river.

I don't understand why you didn't cbet I would have cbet and if a fishy player called we can then decide if we're continuing

as played I check back

Decide if he is actually going to call with those hands, along with the rest of his calling range. If your EV against all of his calling range is positive, then yes. If not, no.

Using your range 6 combos AK and 12 AQ. 18 combos TT JJ QQ.

18 we beat and 18 we lose to assuming he calls with 100% of underpairs.

For a vbet to be profitable we need to be good more than 50% when called which is not the case here given that range. Even if he calls with 100% of his underpairs.

How is he going to check/call or check raise the flop when he is in position?

Im fine with checking behind on the flop especially in a 3bet pot preflop. Hero will make more money from a lot of hands this way. If villain has an A, hero loses less money this way. Having said that, that plan works well for me because I also check behind sometimes when I have an ace.

it's been corrected already

Right, this is my best guess at his range based on preflop action only. So the question is, how much do we discount the 18 AK/AQ combos based on his line? Some? Do we discount at all?

^ I think his range is much wider to include all PP's, suited ace b'dway's and maybe some other junk sc type hands as well.

I check back. I can't imagine many players call with worse, and he's never folding an A or diamonds. Maybe he will call with QQ, but that's about it. Maybe you get lucky and he folds a weak A, but that is so unlikely.

I'm ok with checking back flop and going for a delayed cbet if he checks turn.

As played, I would check riv and be happy to go to SD. If you want to bet, I think there are two paths you can take. You can VB worse hands, in which case I think you have to size it really small since the flush is out there. I would make it like $50-$75.

Or you can target his Ax range and try to bluff him out with a big bet, like $175-$200.

Betting medium like $95 is neither here nor there. He probably folds worse hands and sigh calls with Ax in which case you value owned yourself.

C-betting this flop is terra-bad. Good lord.

I like betting this river. I think we can discount just about every AK and half the AQ combos.

Our line is strange, so I think he can call with a ton of worse hands if we size the bet right. I think 50-75 keeps his calling hands in it. $95 is probaby a little heavy.

The one caveat to this whole discussion is that V is incapable of a river check raise bluff. If V is capable of a CR Bluff, we HAVE to check behind on a hand like this.

Well played, imo. I discount AK combos because I think they bet most rivers. AQ makes a lot of sense. I don't think TT or JJ call another bet. QQ might. Even if villain calls with half the JJ/TT combos and all QQ, you still don't have 50+% vs. AQ. Let's say villain only bets the turn with an A or Q high flush draw. That's 5 AQo combos vs. 3 QQ combos. I find it hard to construct a villain calling range with worse that is over 50%. I check back.

Grunch

Most of his range got to the river. The lead on the turn doesn't really eliminate much. The river check probably caps his range except for some nuttish hands he's going for the x/r with.

As you say, it's razor thin. I think there are about as many QQ - TT as there are AQ (maybe AJ or even ATs). I think the problem is there are at most 18 combos of hands you want to call and probably around that many combos of A that will call. If he has any chance of x/r as a bluff, that's bad (I mean even 5% is bad) and he could have more combos of A that we're not considering. Put that all together and it's either very thin value best case, or moderately negative EV worst case -- the downside is worse than the upside.

I'd check it back.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the cbet is bad. While I agree it's not bad not to, heads up vs a rec V who over values his hands pre we can get value from 99, TT or JJ by him floating a continuation bet.

The ck looked a little mubsy for that reason but this is V dependant. If he calls a cbet he would probably want to get to showdown without turning his hand into a bluff.

I dont want to give the initiative back to him post flop with an over card otf unless we planned to fold the turn. If he decided to pot the turn with air thinking the ace scared us are we calling? We don't know his bluffing tendencies.

Given v description (limited but rec player) I can see all of his Ax still in his range. He opened and called your 3!, checked to the raiser, bet scary turn small and is trying to get to showdown rather than get value. I'm not suggesting he's heavily weighted but I don't really think we can discount.

Now if we knew his preflop range was 88+ AK and AQs only, then we'd be looking at 6 combos AK, 3 AQs=9 vs 18 underpairs. If he folds Say TT and calls with JJ and QQ he'd be calling with worse 57%.

I think what this illustrates is that understanding our villain is one key component to value betting thinly.