Against a total fish - you could make a case about these being unfounded assumptions. But the truth is - poker players are a LOT better today than back when Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP. Players are there to play. They don't want to fold. They don't want to check.

OBSERVATION #1 in Live NL Play:
Players at 1/2 are rarely trying to pot control. They are looking for a reason to bet. Top pair. Mid pair. Straight draws. Flush draws... etc. You name it. If they have a reason to bet they will.

Heck, look at the OP's line. On the turn, he states... "I've got a flush draw! I must bet!" and so he does. Typical 1/2 action. And why not? As you probably know, the first one to bet the pot often wins it.

But any good player who's raising pre-flop - from MP, mind you - is definitely NOT putting chips in the middle to splash the pot. That dude is betting because he has a hand he can win money with. If he's not betting the flop, a VERY reasonable assumption can be made... it's because his hand is weak or he missed the flop.

99 would and should c-bet the flop. So should J9, KJ or any other crazy hand you think a good playing in MP raises with. (In a multi-way pot, AK doesn't always c-bet. But HU, it's almost 90%!)

But he doesn't bet....

Pot control? Really? The pot is $23. You can't even buy a descent meal for $23 nowadays. Why isn't our V c-betting the flop? What's a $12, $15 or $20 c-bet to his $300+ stack? It's nothing. By checking, he's surrendering his equity in the pot.

[BTW - a 5BB raise is child's play at our casino. Most raises start at $12 and go from $15, $20 and even $25 preflop. I know this doesn't follow the online logic of 2.5Xbb - but that's the reality of live casino play.]

" Villain... could be trying to minimize losses against JT and sets. He could also be trying to get two streets of value with something like KJ against something like QT by looking weak on the flop"

This line of thinking baffles me. If V is trying to minimize his losses - he would fold to the turn bet. If he's trying to maximize his KJ or QT, he would reraise the weak turn bet. Neither occurred. So we can reasonably, exclude these from his range. No?

Unless Hero or V are horrible players - I don't see why anyone would be slow-playing a set. The board is too wet on the flop and improves to a FD on the turn. No good poker player in his right mind checks JJ, TT or 44 on the flop and doesn't make at least a pot-sized bet on the turn - or a reraise. Again, neither happened.

Trying to get 3 streets of value on the river with any J, T or 4 is a crazy way to play. Yeah, I guess V could be bluffing since Hero's bets have been small and weakish... but I think his bluffing % is here is in the single digits. Especially since the pot is so whimpy. $83? With V having only invested $25? A drunk poker play might do this. But based on Hero's perception of the V, that guy is not trying to save his 25 with a bluff.

which brings me to:

OBSERVATION #2 in NL Live Play:
On the river, players tend to check/call to show down hands that have value on the river. But raise/reraise/check-raise hands that are the nuts.
(Big hands win big pots. Small hands win small pots.)

Which is why I think AK doesn't reraise. He just calls. So does Q9. Only AQ can reraise.

Now, you're free to think my observations are as unfounded as my assumptions. But the more hours you put in Live NL, the more I think you'll find these axioms to be true.

GL

Grunch.

I lead out on the flop against a passive opponent instead of looking to check raise.
I bet again the turn with it being a relative blank and now we have additional equity.
Vbet river obv.

As played call the river.

call

Fold pre.

C/r flop is ok. Bet bigger on the river.

I agree with those that say fold pf... If we were 200bb deep do you guys defend?

Also, i would defend if we had 1 or 2 fish that called in between, is that wrong?

Definitely call river.. A TAG villain would often cbet here with AQ, no?

Obviously AQ is possible, but far from his entire range..

I think you're right. There are about a bajillion reasons a 2+2er will bet the river, but as near as I can tell, at least 80% of the time, when your average ham-n-egger bets the river, it's because he thinks he has a monster. Maybe 90%. It follows, then, that you can probably make money at this level by folding to aggression otr every single time, and that's probably a good rule of thumb absent reads, I think.

The problem is, the average player's idea of a monster isn't necessarily mine. Lots of money to be made off players who over-value top pair, for example. That's an exceptionally acute consideration here, where hero is so strong.

fwiw I don't think I can fold here. Not because I think the villain could be making a move -- that's a really expensive mindset -- but because I think the likelihood villain is over-valuing a non-nutted hand, along with that 10-20% likelihood of some kind of tomfoolery, is enough given hero's hand strength.

Biggest mistake made imo is on the flop.

Lead flop with your oesd then barrell turn and you might not even see river.

As played, I'm not good enough to fold river myself. Call.

Why are so many people saying to donk the flop?

Well, i know some regs here disagree with donking, but in my view, i like donking against weak passive players because it allows you to take initive without fearing too much being played back against.
They might not always lead with a hand for you to check raise, and they might fold an underpair/second pair kind of hand to your bet when you bet strong.
Theyll always be afraid of something even with an overpair there. It just gives you more room to outplay them in later streets with a draw imo

Grunch:

Call the river.
The rest of the hand for how we got there was meh.

I would have bombed the turn for value (and fold equity).

The overall point here is that there are a range of possibilities of how villain plays and what he might have in this spot. It's impossible to be so confident about a read on a player after reading someone else's short description which itself is based on only 45 minutes of play that you can put him on one exact hand. And it's much more difficult given that this guy is young.

If villain would cbet any pair or draw then he would also cbet AQ. A gutshot with two overs is at least as strong as an open-ender with two unders. By that logic we could exclude AQ and then based on your analysis there are literally zero hands left in villain's range.

Your assertion that players now are A LOT better than they used to be, as well as your last quoted statement above demonstrate why pot-controlling with a hand like KJ makes a lot of sense. Good players understand that they need balanced lines. If they are blindly betting any piece of the flop and checking only when they're giving up then they are extremely exploitable.

Here's how pot-controlling by checking the flop with KJ both minimizes losses when beaten and maximizes wins when ahead:

Scenario 1: Hero bets the turn. He has a very wide range that includes strong hands, draws, weaker pairs, and sometimes total air. Villain flats the turn and flats most rivers when Hero bets again (likely with strong hands or busted draws/air, but sometimes also with QJ). If Hero checks the river Villain can bet for value and somtimes get calls from weaker pairs because it looks like maybe he missed a draw.

Scenario 2: Hero checks the turn. Villain can now value-bet the turn and most rivers. Imagine Hero has QT. If Villain had bet the flop and turn Hero might conclude he's rarely ahead and fold. Whereas by checking the flop Villain might get calls on the turn and river because if, like you, Hero assumes Villain will cbet any pair on the flop his turn and river bets appear to be a semi-bluff with a turned flush draw and a bluff when that draw misses.

(in both the above examples obviously no one knows a K is coming on the river. I'm talking about generally what could happen on this board up to the turn. The river K affects play, but most cards will be under a T and won't as substantially affect the action)

Maximizing value doesn't mean being as aggressive as possible. And minimizing losses doesn't mean weakly folding when you don't have the nuts.

And btw, yes, really pot-controlling. The fact that the pot is currently small means that it's possible to pot-control. Once the pot gets big, then the pot-control ship has already sailed. Checking the flop only surrenders equity if you fold to any further action - obviously that's not the case.

LOL at your pot-controlling essay... I'm not sure you fully understand the true concept behind pot-controlling. When you're 150bb deep and pot is so tiny, you really shouldn't be concerned with stacking off with opponent.

If I'm raising PF from MP with KJ and the board is J-high in a HU situation... and it's checked to me... I'm 100% betting 2/3 to 3/4 pot on the flop. (if I'm scare that he may have trips, quads, a set, two pair... whatever... then I've got MUBS)
If it's checked to me on a blank turn, I'm 100% betting 2/3 to 3/4 pot on the turn.
If the board starts to flush, I'm betting on the higher end to make Hero pay more for a flush draw.
As long as hero is not check/raising, I've got to assume I'm ahead. And when I'm ahead, I'm value-betting my opponent to the max.
What you're describing is scared money. It makes no sense to check the board when you've got TPGK. The only hands in our opponents range that have us beat is AJ, JJ, 44, TT and JT. If our opponent just check/calls, we can reasonably assume he doesn't have any of those hands. Why? Because we could be semi-bluffing on a draw and draw out on him. He too has to take some initiative to protect his pot equity. Otherwise, what's the point of calling the raise?... to check it down and see who hit the board best?
At the poker tables, you will find some players that are uber-passive and check/call in an effort to trap their opponents. But this is a losing strategy, because with every passing street and bet called, the V is building a pot that he's favored to scoop.
In my book - 3 streets of value is always better than 2 streets.
A check on the flop that's not followed by a re-raise on the turn is not a super strong hand. Otherwise, what's the point of checking to induce a bluff?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Feel free to deduce that a check on the flop is KJ on JT4 flop. Where I play, it's pure weakness and a sign that the OR has missed the flop... unless it's played by a total fish (which was not the case in this post).

Baluga theorem is about the turn, not the river.

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6605819&page=0&fpart=all &vc=1

He's revised it to include both turn and river.
and as stated earlier - I misstated it - since OP had a straight, not a single pair.

* We have good equity against V's range, so we want to make sure we get value on this street.
* We want to "charge his draw" if he whiffed with, say, a big ace, to protect our equity.
* We can take it down right here if V has a medium/small pocket pair.
* Lastly, the check-raise is a bit FPS at this level. It's often better to just take initiative and bet your hand.