Prior to the last month, I used to favor pot control and cheap(ish) showdowns with my strong one-pair hands, occasionally sacrificing a value bet on the turn when it's possible (or even likely) that my opponent was on a draw. My reasoning was, by making that turn bet, you are often putting in >30% of your stack and getting yourself into a dangerous pot commitment situation.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago, and a lot of the feedback on my hands was to value bet/fold the turn because it's simply too big of a mistake to let V's draw for free. So since then, I have often been value betting the flop and turn on draw heavy boards, even though it has led to some uncomfortable situations. With that said, let's move on to the hand.

Game is currently 6 handed around 2:00am last night. Villain is an early 20's Asian who seems a little fishy, and based on my reads of his physical demeanor he doesn't strike me as a type of player to fear. He has been chasing flush draws all night. An orbit earlier I bet/bet flop/turn with TPTK with a flush draw on board and he called to the river, flush hit, I checked and he bet 1/2 PSB and I folded.

In another hand, V limped a straddle in MP and called my $30 raise (along with a short stack) from SB when I had QQ,. I hit top set, short-stack went AI for $20 more, V called and I c/r him and he folded.

6 handed, effective stacks of $230.

Hero opens KQ UTG to $10
V calls $10 OTB
SB calls $10
BB calls $10

Pot: $36

Flop: K 8 J

SB, BB checks
Hero bets $30
V calls $30 fairly quickly
SB, BB fold

Pot: $95

Turn J

Hero thinks for 10-15 seconds before betting $75
V tanks for nearly 2 minutes, possibly Hollywooding, before going all-in for $190

$115 more to Hero. Hero has put in exactly 50% of my stack at this point. Should I have b/f the turn or checked and reassessed? My thought process was that I thought the J was a relatively good card for me to bet for value considering my preflop and flop strength indicates I have a pretty strong hand, AA, AK or KQ is the majority of my range here meaning I don't think AJ or QJ would peel the flop here ... but since I don't classify V as a thinking player, he very well may have peeled AJ/QJ, or possibly slowplayed KJ on the flop.

Is the bigger mistake not b/f this turn or b/f after putting in 50% of effective stacks?

I think this is well played, as long as you folded. I would shade your flop and turn bets down a bit though.

Preflop, if $10 isn't going to get you heads up most of the time then KQo is a marginal hand in EP. At a typical loose table it isn't domination that is the big worry, it's the disadvantage of having to play it OOP on a multiway flop. The turn is exactly the sort of problem you run into. Villain has more jacks in their range then you do, but is also likely on some sort of draw. This leaves you flying blind on the turn and no option is really good.

As played, fold to the shove. You don't have a huge hand and it's only weakish flush draws that your in really good shape against.

Pre is whatever I mean most of my raises go heads up or 3-way. It's just the nature of the forum that hands posted will be less than ideal.

I consider KQo above most of the tables calling raise and we are only 6 handed so it rates to be pretty good vs. 5 random hands.

Are you saying you would check the turn here? Does the fact that V has been an observed flush chaser change your decision?

Fold. Also agree with Bob bet slightly smaller

You said villain likes to chase draws not play them fast so right now you only beat a bluff here. You are repping TP here pretty strongly yet he still raised you.

PF is fine 6-handed.

Why are we betting the turn? Yes, sometimes he has a draw here, but this is a spot we need to pot control with our marginal hand. Jx is a large part of villain's c/c range on the flop, and we can use our position and make sure we get one more street of value on the river. Plus, aggro Vs on a draw will use this as a perfect card to c/r bluff OTT, knowing that you likely can't call without a J.

Some of the time, but I don't really like any option on the turn in this situation. Hero needs a very good read on villain's continuation range on the flop for the turn to be clear. Depending on villain the right action could be anything from check/fold (nit who is never going to bet worse) to bet/call all in (vs a spewy lag who will shove any draw in this situation).

Villain sounds like the usual low stakes passive chaser, who will call with lots of worse hands but is rarely semi-bluffing when they raise turn. In that situation then bet/fold is probably best by a small margin but stack sizes make it awkward.

PF: 6 handed, raising KQo UTG is fine.

F ($36): (4) handed. SPR is ~6. Bet is fine, although a half pot bet creates a smaller pot which allows us to b/f the turn. If we bet $18 on the flop, the turn pot is $72 and then we can bet $37 on the turn. This charges his flush draws but only puts in 28% of the effective stack.

T ($95): Heads up. Effective stack has $190 left. We bet $75. Effective stack has $115 left and we've put in 50% of the effective stack. Well, we really shouldn't be putting in half the effective stack and folding. I think it's fine to check here.

I think your perceived range UTG in a six handed game is likely looser than you think.

I think the big mistake is betting 83%P on the flop and 78%P on the turn which puts in 50% of the effective stack and then folding. If we are bet/folding we should bet less. We only have TPGK.

Preflop seems fine. The flop call is what I'm most interested in. It would be very useful information if we had observed villain calling 2nd or 3rd pair previously and how quickly he did it. How does he view you? If you thinks you're FOS, he may snap call a Jack here. If you have a good image, the flop call is more likely to be a draw, which means he can't have a Jack.

This is one of those hands where your read on the villain's flop call will define how you play the hand. If you have no additional information, my default read is that the flop call is a draw and the turn tank is him realizing that he is being forced to call off too much of his stack and him giving it a "whatever" shove in the hopes that he has fold equity. I call and expect to be good >40% of the time, even though you only need ~22%.

As far as your sizing, the flop bet seems good as this flop will hit a lot of drawing hands. Once the turn pairs, I've found people become less enthusiastic about drawing and smaller bets suffice to get them to fold. In a $95 pot with $190 behind, I'd like a bet/fold of ~$55. I can get behind a bet/call in the same spot if you have a strong read that he's semibluffing. That would require a decent history with him, however.

TLDR: Call here, but bet size better next time.

The idea of pot commitment is flawed but it ends up being a shortcut for the correct concept of "sometimes players will do stupid stuff and now we've got fantastic pot odds"

If a villain will never ever shove with a hand that doesn't have you crush then it would be correct to fold even getting odds like 7:1. But in practice poker players do weird stuff sometimes. You might think "shoving with a draw here would be foolish because I have no fold equity" but another player might think "if I call I'll have so little left so I might as well just get it in now"

So as played... I might call if I thought villain was at all possible of doing this with worse. From your description he seems really passive. If he's never shoved without a monster then I guess this is a fold.

I think betting the turn is fine but I would have bet less -- consider the hands we are aiming for value from: weaker Kx and draws. So I'd have bet $55 instead. Yes technically by doing that we are laying the right price for someone to chase a draw. That's fine because we get more value than we would betting nothing, and importantly we get called by more Kx. Betting pot to blow out draws and only get called by better is silly.

Interesting sequence of events that developed in some of the replies. Will post my thoughts.

Hero obviously turbo-mucked to the raise, and while I do think my turn bet sizing was too large, I think the flop was just right.

On the flop, we are still 4 handed when I make the bet and there is potential straight draws and flush draws out there. 4 handed with TPGK seems like the perfect place for a nearly pot sized bet. $18 would too easily price SB or BB in regardless of what they have, and Jx could easily be a part of that range.

On the turn however, when we are only two handed. This is where I really should have dialed it back. I think I was so convinced V was on a flush due to prior hand histories that I severely discounted the likelihood of him holding a J.

I like a ~$50 bet OTT in hindsight leaving $140 behind (40% of effective stacks in the middle).

I don't have enough history with this V to definitely say whether he is capable of spazzing. But V are certainly capable of doing it. Most recently, I had a V spazz C/R AI on the turn vs. me with TPNK when I had an overpair and I was forced to fold (AA 500 BB Deep).

You make me think calling is closer than it appears, but just based on how passive V has been prior to this hand I don't know if I could get behind it.

Turn:
The J is not a good card for two reasons. Against typical fishy guys you have to expect them to peel a flop with 2nd pair most of the time. Also, the J makes it harder to get a lot of value. People don't like drawing on paired boards and KT now has a lot more hands that he loses to. Because of this, I'm betting 55-65 depending on what I can get called by. At $75, I think you are value owning yourself a good deal. It is hard to see him calling with many worse hands.

I don't think the idea of what % of effective stacks we are putting in is really a useful heuristic. You need to focus on maximizing value not trying to get to X% of effective stacks.

How is making V call $55 on a draw here laying the right price?

Hero made a big bet of $30 into $36 OTF and the V called quickly. When a player makes a quick call or an auto-pilot call that requires no thought I range them heavily towards draws or a set and sometimes 2pair (but even 2pair might pause to think about raising OTF). There are 3 combos of a set of 88 and a ton flush combos (12-18 flush combos). If you think Villain is capable of bluffing at all, there are some many bluffing combos compared to Jx or sets that I would need a really good read to not SNAP call here. Villain only has to be bluffing 1 out of 4.5 times for this call to be breakeven.

However, when Villain tanks for 2 minutes (possible hollywooding) then raises allin......From my experience Hollywooding is sign of strength.

So, is Villain tanking for 2 minutes thinking about his fold equity and semi-bluffing or does V have the nuts with Jx or 888 and just tank celebrating before he shoves?

If a Villain is snap calling hero with Jx second pair and putting pressure on hero when hero shows weakness or in this case hero showed strength, then I would think about seat changing or table changing. Otherwise, Villain is just another ABC player that flopped 888 and played his hand perfectly.

What I mean by this, and I think some of the higher level players on this forum have somewhat dispelled it, is the idea put forward in a number of books (I think HOC and Professional NLHE) that if you put in over 30% of the effective stacks and end up folding the hand, it means you have made a mistake somewhere in the hand because you are "pot committed" by that point.

So let's say I sized the flop and turn a little better:

Pre: $10
Flop: $25
Turn: $50

This would be 37% of effective stacks (admittedly, better sizing than the 50% I ended up putting in by going $30 OTF and $75 OTT), meaning, according to the theory, that folding after putting in that amount would be a mistake - which is the entire question I am asking here.

But based on my experience at 1/2, I am starting to believe more so that b/f, with proper bet sizing (ie: $10/$25/$50), is superior than auto-committing yourself just because you put in X% of effective stacks.

I guess what I am saying is, I think betting for thinner value and occasionally being forced to fold having put in too much money, is a better long term EV strategy than pot controlling and letting potential draws peel a free card just so that you can get to a cheap showdown with a strong one-pair type hand and not be blown off the hand.

I think people are likely firmly on one side of the fence or the other on this matter but I'm starting to find myself veering more and more to the thinner value side these days.

+1
I think as played is fine. In spots like this with top pair and a lot of bad turn cards that can fall, I tend to bet around half pot on flop and turn, making it easier/less costly to b/f OTT.

I agree with b/f slightly smaller ott. We are now value targeting only draws and worse K hands and occasionally might get stationed by worse. The paired board also makes it slightly less likely we get as much value from draws. Betting too large starts to approach only getting called by better.

I like the flop pot. Just not the best turn card.

Fold. As described v plays draws passively. Your behind.

I understand what you mean but I think it is flawed logic. Hard rules like this are almost never correct, particularly in live poker.

Think about what assumptions must hold true in order for this rule to be correct. Then see if those assumptions are true in this given situation.

I love villains jam if he had a flush draw or qt

Agreed, but that would require villain thinking on Level 3 correct? And being relatively confident that I am capped at one pair? And making adjustments from our brief history, realizing that now that I know he likes to chase flush draws, a shove would represent the near nuts here?

Well if he did that, kudos to him.

Yes, Bet/Folding vs. Pot Commitment is A Tale of Two Cities - in the sense that there is a right and wrong time to do each. When you develop your ranges, when you bet one street you should bet 2/3 of the time in the next street. (Not going to derail the thread but Poker's 1% by Ed Miller is a great read.). There are good turn cards and horrible turn cards. The J is not a good turn card to barrell. Second pair is certainly in your opponent's range. His range on the flop probably consists of flush draws, straight draws, worse Kings, Jacks, and 8's. It's a bad idea to bet turn because it folds out 8's but you lose money against Jacks. Against the draws sure you're charging him to draw, but the draw can also hit on the river, in which case you lose the turn bet. I like barrelling "good" turn cards and using "pot control against bad". Your range is still balanced if you do this because you're not pegging your barrelling frequency to your own hand but rather to your perception of your opponent's hand. Turn comes 2s, I barrell that turn. I don't barrel when the board pairs. I pot control. If checked through, I check/bluff catch or fold on the river depending on board state. I know it sounds pedantic, but pot control bad turns, barrell good turns works.

*Edit: This would be true whether or not I held the KQ or not. I would still barrell a good turn with air, and not barrell a bad turn, even with air.

I think Zurs kinda hit the nail on the head here. Pot commitment and B/F for thin value are really 2 different concepts.

B/F is more a line you want to take when you know your opponent and have control of him/her. I think too many TAGs autopilot B/F, and use it against unknown opponents, which is a mistake IMO. This is a "this pot now" strategy.

Pot commitment is closer to GTO because it is more a tool to insure that you are not folding too much in spots that you shouldn't, especially against unknown opponents. It, much like SPR, simply tells you when it is unprofitable to fold, given the depth that you are playing at. This is a long term strategy.

Against the described opponent, putting in half your stack and then folding is a mistake, IMO. You say very little about his raising tendencies, and seem only to focus on the way he plays flush draws. If you know him better than indicated, and think B/F is the way to go, then bet smaller, flop and turn.

Also, your thinking seems a bit muddy OTF. "We are 4 way at the flop, so I will bet bigger with a vulnerable TPGK hand"? What exactly does this bet accomplish? Why is a relatively big bet better than a smaller bet here?

Altogether, I don't think this hand is played well. You seem to be worried about the wrong things at the wrong times. Given the information you presented in the OP, pot commitment SHOULD be the overriding concern here, and putting in half your stack and folding is simply lighting money on fire, IMO.

Heh. He could make this play with no history imo. With Jx squarely in his range, he has far higher FE.

However it's also very true that your typical rec LLSNL player doesn't think on level 3 and that you almost certainly made the right play.

Pot control has a place against tough opponents capable of making big moves and passive players who will station with a significantly stronger range than ours. But at 1/2 against your run of the mill villain who calls too much, bluffs too little and raises mostly when they have it, bet/fold lines are optimal because they exploit the mistakes of those players and get max value. Arbitrarily saying that folding after putting x percentage of your stack in is lighting money on fire is actually quite silly and will only lead to missing value. Unless you aren't capable of folding then observing some hard and fast commitment threshold is probably wise to protect yourself.

That's not to say that we should have put in half our stack in this specific spot.

My problem with the turn in this specific spot is that the pairing of the J reduces the number of worse hands in v range AND presents a scarier board texture for his Kx and draw hands to continue on. So any value bet ott is going to be thinner and accordingly should be smaller to increase the chance we will be called by worse. When villain raises he is announcing we are beat and we can comfortably fold since his bluffing frequency is nowhere near high enough to make a call profitable with the given pot odds.