$2/$5


Edit: I have top and bottom ....not bottom 2. Mods please change the title if you get a chance?

Effective stacks $250-$500

6 way limped pot. Hero in the BB with KcTc.

Flop ($30) KsQdTh. Checked to the button who bets $20. UTG throws in $20 before I act. I decide to call and let him in. He calls as does one other MP limper. Im guessing that based on the action, if I had led $20 on the flop, we would be in this same spot (but maybe button wouldve folded if he bet here with just a Q or T).

UTG playing very tight. I dont think hes won a hand in an hour and a half and has barely entered any pots. Hasnt raised preflop at all yet.

Button sucks but is running hot. He bets lots of flops. Ive seen him bet bottom pair into 3 guys when last to act but it was a flop like K92 and he had A2.

MP...no read. Standard rec player

Turn ($110) 8c. Due to the button betting lots of flops when last to act, I think there's a fairly good chance he will check behind here if its checked to him so I lead out $75. Thoughts?

If I checked and button did bet, the plan would be to check raise.

Why not raise flop?

Nothing wrong with that. I was just trying to let UTG in and then milk them for some more money on safe turns.

If you are a tight UTG player who limped, what hand do you need to continue on that flop to a bet and a check raise? Probably TT I would think (maybe KK/QQ since he hasnt raised a single time preflop).

Now that hes in and the pot is bigger, I think pair and draw hands like KJ, QJ, JT are likely to continue for another $75. Im not sure these guys will call the check raise with these same hands on the flop, but I could be wrong.

I think I would still prefer a raise to ~70 on the flop as any A, J, Q, or 9 kills any of your future action in a 6 way pot.

im almost always leading this flop for 20-25. When we decide to check I'm check raising the button to 75-90, planning to fold to a 3bet from UTG or MP (depending on stack sizes) and to gii vs a 3bet from the button. given read on button we want to set ourselves up to play for stacks with him on safe run outs.

I understand the logic of wanting to keep UTG in but flatting the 20 gives UTG and MP great direct odds to draw with their Jx hands.


if they're continuing on the turn for 75 with these kinds of hands I'd be shocked if they were able to get away on the flop when they have 2x the chance to improve. as played though, leading the turn is necessary. sizing seems good

Personally I generally prefer bet/folding the flop and following up on most turns, depending on what happens.

But this is mostly because it's not uncommon for me to have 2-3 villains at the table who limp all broadways, and thus have KQ and AJ in their range. However they also have lots of other hands in their range that will call a bet but maybe not bet themselves. So bet/folding is what I like. Sometimes you may have some uncomfortable turn situations where you don't know if a villain understanding his relative hand value in light of the board, but this is inevitable.

Alternatively, if stacks are shallow enough and villains will go for it, you could x/raise big and just commit yourself to getting it in on the turn. This assuming villains will call with draws, or want to believe that you have the draw and call with top pair or so on.

you should never milk people on wet boards with mediocore holdings. Ever.

I get your point but I wouldnt call 2 pair "mediocre" at this point in the hand. It becomes a lot less valuable on this board if I check raise and get called.

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I mistakenly titled this "bottom 2" and a mod mistakenly change it to "top 2". Two wrongs dont make a right.

Top two? yes. Top and bottom? no. mediocore? yes.

Slow play broadway on a rainbow flop, never top and bottom on a 3 b'dway flop.

I like this line if you b/f turn

Again, I think there is more than one good line here. I think my line is fine as long as I know how to fold later in the hand. Its a limped pot so its not a huge loss if I dont win the hand.

If I check the flop and there is a bet and a raise before it gets back to me, I might just fold.

If I check raise the flop and get called, I will need to be pretty cautious in an already big pot which is tough since I could be crushed or he could have a pair and a J.

If I play it the way I did and the turn brings an A, Q, J or 9, I can check/evaluate (fold). If it brings any other cards, I think I make more money this way with less risk.

I know its an alternate line than most people take but I think its one reason I have better risk/reward than most people. Last time I played a big pot with top and bottom on a 3 broadway flop, I came in 3rd place in a 3 way all in (it was a raised pot so it was different but the point remains that if the pot gets big, Im probably behind).

That was the plan

Grunch:
Big reverse implied odds here and OOP I just try to check this down 6 handed.

Yeah, I 3rd this

Top two and Top and bottom really aren't that much different on this board.

You should almost always be leading this flop. I know you think there are "multiple lines". that may be true but that is not the same as all lines being equally good.

As played b/f now.

Just not sure why we are being "tricky" in a limped pot on the flop.

this is awful. We limp in flop pretty strong and you want to check it down without taking a single aggressive action???

I actually dont mind c/c and leading safe turns. There are a lot of bad turn cards and if we b/c flop we are put into a bunch of ****ty situations.

But ya KT = KJ pretty much here unless of course villain has KJ.

I didnt think I was trying to get tricky. I was trying to be cautious and control the pot size on the flop. When I got a safe turn card I led out thinking I was still ahead but would've folded to a raise. Hardly anyone would raise the turn without having me beat.

I'm just curious, why would you want to control the size of the pot in a limped pot?

Pot control really is a pretty dumb concept as it relates to cash games. If you can classify your opponents at all and play their expected ranges I'm not sure why "pot controlling" is even a thing.

There are so many inferior hands that will give you action on this flop and very few better hands that you should see.

Better-AJ, KQ, J9
Worse-KJ, QJ, JT, QT, AK, AQ, Jx, maybe AT

I just realized that when I played the hand, when I posted the HH and all the way until just now, I was thinking I had bottom 2 which I guess is why I titled the original thread "bottom 2". I asked for the title to be changed, but still was thinking about how the hand should be played as if I had bottom 2.

I still dont hate my line, but definitively would like it better if I had QT here. I would want to control the pot with QT because the bigger the pot gets, the higher the odds are that Im behind.

Lets say, I lead out $20 which is standard I would think. Based on what actually happened, I think we can be pretty sure that UTG and MP wouldve still called like they did. The button was betting alot of flops and giving up later (saw one SD where he bet bottom pair last to act), so he may or may not have called even though we know he bet when checked to.

On the turn we are basically in the same spot but the pot may be $20 lower. I dont see my line as being all that different from the standard line.

I think standard would be to lead the turn again. I did lead the turn in the actual hand. Am I really that far off from the standard line? Other than with my line people are confused when I check/call and then suddenly lead out. They may think I have K8/Q8.

Mike, step outside your line for a moment and think in a vacuum how Slims (too strong) ranges react facing a reasonable flop bet vs a flop check.

It shouldn't be hard to imagine that most of these hands often check when facing a check but will often call when facing a bet.

Further, when you check, with each subsequent check, the next range is more often incentivized to do the same as the pot stays small which means more checks.
When you bet, the equity requirement for each subsequent call/overcall shrinks as the pot grows which means more calls.

Check throughs should therefore be far far more likely than bets, calls, overcalls which is a pretty glaring loss of value for the street. If you then take it one step further and think about what happens when flop checks through and you now lead turn, calling ranges will now be even narrower/harder to find given pot size/"brick" turn.

Ill also just briefly add that ck-c flop, lead turn isn't deceptive, it's normally perceived as a narrow/strong line as weaker hands that call a flop, tend not to want to have to bet-f a turn and stronger hands that ck-c a flop tend to not want to have it check through and therefore bet. A range that goes bet bet, should also have more hands in it which makes it a bit harder to play against.