this is just a general question...

playing with a new player heads up in a pot where you open QQ and get called by this player and go heads up to a flop. You are out of position. Don't have any information on him because he just sat down. stack sizes are roughly 100BB each .

Flop comes: K10X (rainbow); generally I think its standard to c-bet when there is one over card on flop to gauge my opponents hand strength and deny equity to draws; being out of position I feel like you might want to keep pot small because it seems like a way ahead or way behind situation so maybe we could get value from 10x hands or bluffs if we're ahead and also lessen the damage if we are behind;

I'm probably overthinking this but just curios what other people think

QQ on KTxr, is a check.

There aren't many draws to protect from as you block QJ,
and not much need for equity denial as the only worse card is an A.

You are WA or WB so in this scenario it makes sense to keep the pot small and bluff catch and/or let villain value cut himself.

Not many Ks in villain's range either since you also block KQ
and AK would often 3 bet.

I tend to agree with you.. although one of my biggest leaks is that I cbet too often. This is one I would probably cbet occassionally but not often. (Not saying that you should cbet.)

One interesting scenario that I've been getting in with this type of hand is that I play pf as you have played it. At 1/2 and 1/3 there are a lot of nits that will literally just flat AK pf in this spot. So I try to bluff catch, or it checks through and I'll go for some thin value on the river and villain flats and turns over AK. This drives me insane, and it probably shouldnt because I end up losing the minimum.

Anyways I agree that checking back here is good, but I would definitely mix in some cbets.

If you go to the ***Best of LLSNL*** stickie at the top of the forum, the first selection available is 'Concept of the Month.' One of the many concepts cover C-Bets & it is written by cbrewer4 and cAmmAndo & is one of my favorites.

If you scroll 1/2 way down to the para Check/Call, you'll see that they cover this very situation & are saying the very same thing that Mr. Spyutastic says.

Yes I agree with you , I checked and my opponent checked back , turn was a blank and I check called 20 , so K10XX board, river is another 10. suits are irrelevant here. I check and my opponent bets 35. what type of range are you putting this guy on ? Is this a standard call ?

The river is less than a 1/2 pot bet so readless I'd call.

Really dependent on your image at the table and V type, but generally, it's better to bet if you would check-call regardless. I also think flop is your best chance to get loose calls (mp, gutter, etc) so why not go for value. This is not a WA/WB unlike A72 would be

3rd flop card is also important. 7,8,9 is a clear bet and changes future betting strategy.

Not sure how you define WA/WB, but for me when villain has 5 outs or less when I'm ahead and I have 2 outs when I'm behind that fits the criteria.

Not sure how you can say this spot is not WA/WB. A pocket pair with 1 over card by definition fits this critieria.

I check/call, because there are a plenty of decent turn cards for our hand. We have a ton of playability on later streets, and we need to give our villain a chance to spew.

Villain will bet AQ/AJ/AT/QJ/JT and air.

And yes, this defines WA/WB.

check

I think this is a great question!!!

In position I like checking back here generally. Sure there are cons to doing that (giving a free card).

On this board one could also argue betting 100% of ur range

As we can get him to bluff the tUrn some of the time and our hand works nicely as a check call.

When we bet OOP we can pretty easily find out if he has a king. Sure it might be exploitable to take a stab and check the turn but it should work often enough

Excellent analysis!

Id just range bet otf esp rainbow, it should be more +EV than checking and guessing. Our opponent is more likely to make a mistake agaisnt our 1/3 bet (e.g. folding hands that should be continuing vs this sizing) whereas if we check we’re in no man’s land and can make a lot of mistakes. There’s very few turn cards we like besides basically a Q. I mean i guess an A or J is ok bc people arent going to bluff those cards often but in a vacuum this board is so good for us so we can just bet 90-100% of our range with impunity

Yea i feel like I could have had a better idea where I was in hand If I c-bet the flop, can't believe this guy flatted my open UTG+1 with K9off and like 6 players behind him, probably could have saved a bit of money

Again, if you plan on check-calling then IMO you should be betting. This is nowhere close to a WA/WB.

QQ on KT7r can get called by tons of worse hands and the hands that will call a bet but rarely bet when checked to (ie AT, JT, 99, 89, QJ, etc). I think its wrong to assume this guy is LAG and will barrel draws/turn hands into a bluff to put pressure on us. Just go for value...K62, A82, are clearly more WA/WB spots.

When you have a one steet value hand you don't have to bet it on the flop. And just because you check doesn't mean you are in no man's land and guessing. There are later streets to be played beyond the flop.

Agreed...BUT If you check flop there is a chance you get no streets. Flop is your best chance to get loose calls (mp, gutter, etc) so you should go for it while you can.

I agree with this and the biggest reason is that we are HU. Multi-way OOP, I think a much better case can be made for checking, but HU I don't think it makes sense, especially if you are checking to call.

So in cases where villain's range is mostly missed draws.
We should bet right?

Because we should follow this arbitrary rule of"if you are going to check/call better to just bet."

Be careful with these rules people hear somewhere and just try to blindly apply it everything.

You are applying a river concept to a flop c-bet question.

OTR, if we have a marginal hand/bluffcatcher, it makes more sense to check and allow missed draws to bluff since we are very unlikely to get value from worse hands.

But generally, the concept of betting whenever you planned on check-calling applies very well to the flop...not necessarily turn or river.

I just used that as an example. If you actually do the analysis in this spot it's usually a check unless villain is a loose passive calling station.

Your only reason for betting is, "if you will call, well you should bet." That doesn't cut it for me.

"unless villain is a loose passive calling station."

Have you played LLSNL? lol....That description fits many/most 5/5 and below players to a tee...


While you may be value-owning yourself with a flop cbet, I think those times are more than outweighed by the times a passive V will check back draws/mp/gutters.

A flop cbet accomplishes 2 things: doesn't let V see a free card while also getting value from hands that will be less likely to call a delayed cbet OTT.

"You are WA or WB so in this scenario it makes sense to keep the pot small and bluff catch and/or let villain value cut himself."


You kind of contradict your whole argument right here as well...if V is capable of value cutting himself with a hand worse than mp, then we can obviously get value from those hands OTF.

Not a good reason since villai will usually have between 2 to 5 outs vs us when we're ahead.

You can easily get a street of value from these hands on the turn or river. So what you think you're C bet is accomplishing, doesn't outweigh the negatives.