Hero: Young Asian male. Solid tight-aggressive player. Has played a few hands aggressively but has not went to showdown yet, so probably (definitely?) perceived as nitty.

Villain 1: Late 20s white kid. No history with villain. Looks like internet kid, but another reg described him as a bad LAG, and based on what I have seen, I agree. Plays a lot of hands preflop and opens somewhat light, but plays more straightforward postflop. Tends to not bet postflop unless he hits somehow. Has been told that he overvalues hands, but hero has not seen any evidence of that.

$1/3 NL $500 max home game

SB
BB
UTG
EP
EP2
MP Villain ($1000)
MP2
LP Hero ($700)
Button

Hero is dealt 99

One limper to villain, villain makes a standard $12 raise, hero 3bets to $35, folds to villain who calls.

Flop ($70): Q84

Villain checks, hero bets $40, villain tanks for a bit and calls.

Turn: 5

Villain checks, hero bets $75, villain tanks again and calls.

River: 4

Villain checks, hero checks, villain shows AQ and wins.

Just looking for a line check. I was value betting on the flop, and value/blocking bet the turn. Wasn't too sure if villain was capable of bluffing river with missed hearts if I check turn, so I thought a turn bet would both get value from hearts and induce him to check river, allowing me to check back. After the hand though, I thought maybe my turn value bet was too thin. What do you guys think?

I liked the turn bet. Get value from draws. Nothing on the river is likely to help you much. Against a wrinkly old nit I would slow down ott but against a loose player who has the potential to LAG-bomb the river... Yeah if draws are in his range, I like it

What was your reasoning for 3betting preflop?

Flop: ok I guess depending in his calling tendencies.

Turn: that's a pretty horrid barrel card. There aren't a lot of flush draws he could have so I'm a little more inclined to check turn and let him be his aggro self on the river with hat amounts to a bluff catcher.

Spike-- I was thinking the 3bet and the turn bet go together, if (if) the read is, villain is on a broad range including speculative hands... Would you agree or would you still flat the 99?

Your line is OK. I actually probably bet turn bigger to charge draws more. Maybe $100ish, but that's a bit nitpicky. Because you've overplayed your hand a bit you look stronger than you are. It puts you in my favorite spot where I'm bluffing against part of his range and value betting against another part. So many players will snap fold JJ here but snap call with AT. I'm not saying you actually get him to fold AQ here, but maybe.

Another thing to consider, and I know it's somewhat results oriented, is that when you don't get c/r on the turn here, he never has a monster. The board is too wet to let you peel another card. QQ is not check/calling. There is merit to bluffing that river card. But don't post results in your initial thread. Wait a while first. It skews the advice you get. Like it may have just skewed my advice to bluff the river.

Don't 3b pre. As played, check turn. You are only getting value from FD's and you aren't folding out any better hands by betting.

This seems like one of the worst river cards to bluff on tbh.

It's not about picking the card to bluff. It's about reading V as not being confident about his hand, his range being capped at AQ, and us doing a good job of repping AA/KK. Not saying it's a great spot to do it, but I would strongly consider it, especially if our hand had less showdown value.

Kind of off topic, but it seems like this forum is very obsessed with only bluffing at scare cards. IMO gauging villains confidence in their hand is significantly more important than bluffing at the right card.

It's not about picking the card specifically, but we want to bluff on cards that help our range more than our opponents, and this is definitely not one of them. I'm just not of the mindset that we should be trying to bluff Villain's at 1/3 off of TPTK, especially when one of the nut worst river cards to bluff hits otr.

Some posters think that a lot of low-stakes players are incapable of folding top pair unless faced with a scare card that could have allowed their top pair to be outdrawn. And that a lot of low-stakes players are incapable of folding a hand that can beat a bluff if they think there is a decent change of bluffing.

If you really analyze his range, there's not much that will fold to the turn bet.

There are only a couple flush draws: AK,AJ,AT, maybe JT. He's not folding those to a 1/2 pot bet on the turn. And there is the danger that as a LAG he decides to raise the turn with those. Granted, he'd likely do that on the flop, but there is a chance.

There is Qx (AQ,KQ, QJ) which again is almost never folding on the turn.

There is TT+, only one of which is folding (JJ).

There is 8x. Not many of those in his range probably, and those likely will fold the turn. but that's not what we want.

And then there's the random nonset PP's under 88 that we don't want to fold, but will to a turn bet.

I see this range and discern that his propensity to bluff the river with missed draws and worse value hands makes more money than what we lose when we let one of his 4 drawing hands get there for free. Even if he checks river, he'll call with that 8x hand a lot more often than if we bet turn.

In this instance, I'm not really looking to tell the story of AA/KK with my 3bet, bet,bet. I'm looking to get to showdown cheaply and ahead of his range. Checking the turn makes that a lot more likely. Now if you told me that you were just going to 3 barrel like a bad mofo, then I could maybe be OK with it with the understanding that this is probably not the player type to go for it with.

I like the initiative to 3bet-pre, though flatting is the obviously standard line.

I'm fine with the flop cbet, but once that does not get through I think you need to shut it down.

There are not enough heart draws, and barely any 8x to get value from OTT.

By comparison, if V had limped pre and you ISO'd with 99 from LP, I would consider firing the turn as well as his range is much wider to include many more heart draws, second-pair floats, etc.

But in a 3bet pot his continuing range OTF is ahead of us.

Tank check back OTT, maybe you will induce a check OTR.

Thanks for the feedback guys. In response to some of the comments, I like to 3bet here in spots like this because first of all, 99 is way ahead of villain's 3bet calling range. It's an easy value bet. Also, I'm in position and it gives me initiative in the hand. Plus, being a perceived nit, it widens my 3betting range when I don't just 3bet AK and TT+.

Flop was also a value bet. A couple of you mentioned that if my flop bet doesn't "get through," that I should shut down on the turn. But my flop bet wasn't really 100% a bluff. In that spot, on a Q high board, I don't mind a call and I don't mind a fold. I bet small, to induce villain to peel with things like AJ and AK, in addition to getting value from flush draws. Had an A or K flopped, my cbet would be more of a bluff since these hit villain's 3bet calling range much harder, but there's fewer hands he could have with a Q.

The turn bet is a little more questionable. In addition to getting value from flush draws, I also hoped to fold out TT and JJ as well as induce villain to check the river and get to a cheap showdown. If I check back turn, I believe villain will bet river with most of his air, in addition to all of his value hands. There are so many river cards that could improve villain's hand that I don't really want to give him a free card here if I'm ahead. Had I had KK on an A high board, I would happily check back turn and snap off villain's river bet, but here, I figured I would rather bet flop/turn and pot control river rather than bet flop and pot control the turn with the intention of calling on the river.

What do you guys think? Do my thoughts make sense?

This is probably a whole other thread, but if you have a 3bet range of AK/TT+ and need to widen it to take advantage of a nit image, the hands you need to add aren't the next best hands, like 99 and AQ, the hands you need to add are the hands which hit the flops which are the worst for AK/TT+.

I'd like to see why you think 99 is way ahead if his 3 bet calling range. Unless he's calling with 100% of a 100% opening range that simply isn't true.

I think he is confusing "Way ahead of his range" with "ahead of most of his range". They sound similar but are very different.

I'd wager you are correct. Let's hope he figures out the difference.

Thank you DK, this is what I meant. I am ahead most of his range, but I am only slightly ahead equitywise against his entire range. It's a thin value 3bet.

Spikeraw22, how would you play this hand? You advocate flatting preflop. But unless we hit a set, it's a hard hand to play on most flops if villain continues his aggression. We're deep and in position, why not 3bet to take the initiative as well as build the pot with what is most likely the best hand? Keep in mind that there's very little reverse implied odds here. I'm not stacking off on a 7 high board. I'm still trying to play a small-medium sized pot, I'm just trying to get more money in when I'm most likely to be ahead.

What do you think his range for calling a 3bet is? I don't think 99 is ahead of it, unless you know he rarely folds to a 3bet.

He's been opening as light as K4s and 52o in spots like this. No one's 3bet him yet. Based on how he plays (he flats a lot of preflop raises with hugely speculative hands liek suited aces, 2 gappers, stuff like that) and the stack sizes though, I expect him to only fold maybe the bottom 1/3 of his opening range here, plus a few obviously dominated hands like KJo, ATo etc. Keep in mind that my 3bet wasn't very big. I'm trying to keep all the suited connectors, gappers, and trash in his range.