I am an LHE player who's gradually starting to get his feet wet in NLHE. In LHE, if you raise AK before the flop and flop top pair, you're headed to showdown except under very unusual circumstances. It is clear that this is not the case in no-limit, not even at most low-limit tables like 1/2 or 1/3. You have to know your villain - the number of big blinds a villain will put in the middle with something that can't beat TPTK varies from villain to villain but from what I've seen a villain who will do so with 100bb or more is a rare bird. And when relative stacks are even bigger than that, fuhgedabahdet.

It seems to me like you have to balance three concepts - pot control, value and exploitability.

Pot control, to me, usually means checking the turn, hoping to get two streets of value and not get value-owned for more than 2 streets.

My experience so far is that if a villain calls the flop and then bets the turn when checked to, or donks the river after check/calling the flop and watching the turn go check/check, it's a slow-played monster (or a hand that "got there" on the turn or river), not a bluff.

So getting to the point, my questions are:

1. Understanding that the answer varies not only casino to casino but table to table and villain to villain, how often do you run into villains at 1/2 and 1/3 tables from whom you can get 3 streets of value from TPTK or an overpair, and
2. Do you sometimes try to pot control with one pair, and when you do, do you feel like the villains are able to exploit you by using aggression to get you to fold your pair when they have worse?

Hope the topic and questions made sense.
DTXCF

As always, specific hands are easier than trying to talk in general terms, but here goes.

The board is a factor here moreso than the game. For example, let's say we raise AA or AQ preflop, the flop comes QcJc3h and we bet flop and turn, one opponent calling, turn and river total blanks. I'm absolutely going for three streets here. The sort of central default thing we're always trying to do in NL is keep our ranges balanced. Here, I'm probably going to have quite a few hands I want to bluff with, and the opponent knows this. Also, with a wet flop like that I can have confidence my opponent is not trapping me as they will be too scared of the draws. In a way, going for three streets here is exploiting my opponent's unbalanced range. Their flat-call range has no strong hands in it, so I am confident to continue to bet.

"Pot control" is not a term that I'm fond of, because it's a generic term for going passive with good hands that obscures the different reasons why we would do that, keeping the pot small not being a goal in itself. If you're routinely seeing 6 way flops, then you want to slow down simply because top pair isn't all that strong when that many people saw the flop. But if you're seeing 2, 3 handed flops and you're having trouble getting paid off, it's a reaction I see a bit on here (here just today) to start trying to trap the opponent rather than just value betting. This is a mistake. If you feel like your opponents fold too often, bluff more aggressively.

You sort of have to decide what you think your opponent's mistakes are. If they're not making any, then you can't win. When you say this:

You're probably talking about a certain archetype, the level 0 player. These guys don't even know that a deeper strategy to poker exists. If you ask them a question like "why did you bet here, what worse hands did you think would call?" they'll look at you blankly. They just evaluate their hand strength and if they think it's "good", they bet. They rarely or never bluff and don't go for thin value. Against these players, pot control is a little overrated. What pot control is is putting your good hands through a passive line. One of the aims of this is to try to exploit overaggression from the opponent. I've had this happen a ton of times when I misjudge my opponent: I raise and they call OOP. I flop a decent top pair, they check, I bet, they call. Blank turn. They check and I check "for pot control". Blank river, they check, I bet, they fold. The problem here is that one of the points of checking is to pick off river bluffs from my opponent and these guys are never intending to bluff me. By checking the turn I'm just giving them a free card for whatever random holding they have. I'd be better off betting the turn, maybe with a reduced sizing, and checking the river if I think there's no more value.

So I guess my point is, when I go passive with a one-pair hand, of course I'll fold it sometimes but generally the point of going passive is that I want to use it as a bluffcatcher. If there are no bluffs to catch, going passive was likely the wrong choice.

1. On a regular basis. Running into villains stationary enough that they will pay off with worse every time is rare but I run into a lot that will call three streets with worse then TPTK a lot more then they should.

2. Yes, there are a lot of reasons to slow down. The most obvious being one pair isn't a strong hand on some boards, against certain villains or if the hand is multiway after the flop. How many will try to exploit this is very situational. A good number will bluff with 4 to a straight or flush on the board and paired boards can produce very strange play. In general though 1/2 players don't bluff enough and the ones that do stand out as being very aggressive/bluffy and try to bluff too often.

A theoretical thing worth mentioning is that we want to be aggressive when we have a range advantage and passive when we don't. What I mean by that is, let's say we raise and someone calls in position, flop 972, we cbet and they call. Turn is a K. Without getting into specifics of what we might have here etc, this is a better card for our range than it is for his, so from a theoretical point of view we want to structure our play around aggression. OTOH, if the turn was an 8, that's a much better card for his range than for ours, so we want to be going passive here. Obviously then you have to factor in opponent tendencies etc, but that's the basic idea.

It is going to be villain related. If I think I'm only going to get two streets of value, I'm going to bet the turn the more the board is wet since I'm more likely to be up against a draw.

Even at 2/5, there are enough spots where I go for 200+bb of value with an overpair, I think most people are way too tight in their value betting.

You're allowed to bet 1/5th pot on the river, if you think larger is going to tighten their range too much to be profitable. A 1/5th river bet can easily be much higher ev than a 2/3rd pot flop bet with the same hand. If you're up against people who don't check/raise light, try a small bet before checking.

I find myself checking the turn to keep the pot small in these situations, and a lot of it has to do with thinking "what am I going to do if he check raises me"?
I think players who are very strong post flop are more likely to bet three streets.

It was referred to ITT that it's often a river bluff-catcher play, and that's the main reason I like to do it, except that (as also is mentioned ITT) there are often tables where players aren't bluffing that much which kind of makes it pointless.

This is very interesting to me. In the past year or so, 3 times Ive posted HHs where it was HU to a flop that had a FD...maybe something like Qd8d6c...and I asked if people here were more willing to keep barelling due to putting villain on a FD.

I asked because I was trying to determine if I could more profitably just call with a set here (or even call down with 99 type hand) and let the other guy keep bluffing with AK or keep pounding with a weakish hand. Each time I got very few responses. It was like the room went silent.

If you watch Doug Polk, one of the things I've seen him do a number of times is keep his range wide by flatting with sets in spots like that. It's very difficult to play against. To make it work in LLSNL though you first need to find an aggressive player.

There are not (yet) a lot of Villains that we need to worry about being "exploited" by.

"Balancing our range" against most of our Villains is a waste of money (by betting when we are weak or playing passively when we are strong).

By profiling our Villains as the orbits go by you can sometimes identify the exceptions by what they do against the rest of the table.

Against the rest of the table ourselves, slow playing good hands costs us more than it gains us, IMO.

I dont think a lot of players are double barreling even close to often enough to be able to do this type of play, but I suppose its worth discussing as far as how to beat a competent LAG by doing this. Are you talking IP or OOP? because I think thats a BIG difference. Ill try to put myself in hero's shoes, with you being V with a set.

2/5 $1k stacks, Preflop hero raises to $25 from MP, V calls in BB, another V who limped calls behind.

Flop ($75) Qd8d6s

V checks his set, V2 checks, hero bets $50

If you call this, I think youre not putting yourself in a great spot. I am betting near 100% of my range here, might check back a low pair, or a gutshot, although I think even that doesnt happen a lot.

we can go thru a few turns...

Turn ($175) J T 9 7 5 4 and diamond you check, I bet $125. I mean, yeah you are calling here, but you sure as hell cant raise it, because ill just jam it with my made hands, and fold everything else. This is probably exploitable, I mean, you could probably C/R turn with air exploitably against me, I think thats the move here if anything, not slowplaying a set, because whenever we are actually getting to showdown, id guess my range is ahead of yours here. I probably am double barreling with some of my range here, but you arent super pumped about it. I am giving up some of my bluffs on the river, and probably putting you to another tough decision on the river.

I will also be checking the turn with plenty of cards here, because if I have a draw, ill probably just peel the free card OTT.

Turn ($175) Q, this is your best card, you can probably C/R me and get value out of my Qx, but I am checking back anything else.

Turn ($175) A K, I will probably be betting this pretty wide with air, so you can probably check/call and continue your trap if you want I suppose, and maybe youll get a third street of value from my Ax/Kx by betting into me OTR.

turn 8 6 3 2 im probably just checking except with my value hands. I guess youll get value from my trips, although i probably checked back plenty of my pairs OTF...

In position? Maybe you can do it... It will keep me from getting free rivers with my backdoor draws and gutshots, although you kind of already let me get one free card with them, so yeah youll pick up some air bets.

As far as with 99, I think youll get value owned with Qx, and FWIW, I tend to value bet comically thin OTR against good players who recognize my polarized ranges against the other villans, so its safe to assume that if the player is good, he is going to change his style against you if its obvious you are good, even if youve got a read on him.

@ Tomark: Well played sir!

Heres my opinion:

Heads up....against a good player.... Im more likely to just call with a set on a flush draw board or a board with straightening cards that hit my range a lot more than the preflop raisers. Good players are more likely IMO to double barell especially if the turn is a scare card.

Heads up against an avg to bad player Im more likely to raise the flop because they wont fold an overpair and if they have air, they wont bet the turn anyway.

Multiway...On a flop with a FD, Im likely to overbet shove all in because people always seem to think that means a FD and I get called all the time. HU, the pot isnt big enough for this move but if there are 3-4 caller preflop and then a healthy flop bet, a shove is still an overbet but not ridiculously so.

I think youre talking in far too much generalities here, and since I mostly agreed it could be used IP, I guess ill stick to OOP discussion. Are you trying to say you C/C flop check turn OOP? Even as the aggressor? I mean, how often are you NOT the aggressor OOP anyway? Are you checking ANY turn card, or only scare cards? So youre C/Ring the turn after a flush hits? seems like youd be overrepping your hand as being a flush.

Also are you generally betting or C/Ring with draws OTF? It seems to me that if youre C/Ring the flop with draws, you need to protect your semibluffs with real hands, otherwise V can just jam on you OTF when they have top pair (which, for the record, ive done several times to Vs who have a propensity to semibluff as well as slowplay big hands, like ive 3 bet shoved 200 BBs with QJ on that exact type of board before)

agreed

seems fair, id probably read it as a FD as well.

My guess is you'll get some pretty wide responses to this question, and it really is simply based on your experiences and the type of tables you play at.

If you play at a time warp table where everyone is only just playing their hand and not thinking about what you could possibly have (really? that's the game you're playing in?), then maybe you can get 3 postflop streets from TP.

If you're playing in a game where everyone is paying a little bit of attention and thinking about how everyone is playing, is reg infested as opposed to gambool-it-up-let's-have-a-beer rec infested, it's very unlikely you're going to get 3 postflop streets from TP (unless you have a real maniac barrelly image yourself).

GtwostreetswithTPisa*very*goodresult,imoG