OP if you post the exact same hand 2 months from now except with you holding AJ instead of KQs, watch as some of the same people who told you this triple barrel w/ KQ will never work will also urge you not to (go for 3 streets and) value bet river w/ AJ because V will not call with worse. Its classic 2+2 bias where responders assume worst is going to happen.

Pretty much this in a nutshell. But its not a big of a egobooster and as glossy as being occupied with planning light 3 bets and big multistreet bluffs.

Edit: Neeme also highlighted strong fundamental "ABC" poker in his latest vlog when playing 2/5 at Aria, that it is important to remind himself what gets the job done at the smaller stakes against mostly rec players. He have discussed before in older videos to that its very easy to get the fancy play syndrome going if you arent self aware.

IMO usually when villain check calls on the flop and turn their mostly going to check call the river too. Maybe hiding something great from hitting the flop well like A5/K5 (why he prob limped) and got trips or just is chasing. But could still have a small ace in this spot like A3.

I just saw your spoiler and villain had A9. From my experience they have something on the flop when check calling twice here. Which he did. Usually it is good to check the turn as you had a club flush draw to get a free card as your likely not going to push him off TKTP on the flop as what 5's do you have in your range, A5/K5? Not likely plus most who flop a set on that type of board check it on the flop to try induce betting action from villain.

Nonsense
AJ would certainly be a thin value b/f on river and you can quote me in two months time

I concur with this. Would definitely b/f river here with AJ. In game I'd tend to size down with AJ on this runout, targeting 9x and some stickier PPs. Not sure if that's a correct line of thinking, but that's usually how I'd play it. Either way, definitely going for river value when we turn TPTK on this board.

If we don't bet KQcc on the river then we basically have no bluffs in our range in this spot which I think is a mistake, especially when V probably has a weak one pair hand like 77, 9T. We occasionally get snapped off but not more than 50% of the time imo. Fringe benefit of getting snapped off is actually getting paid when we have QJ or something later in life.

I disagree with everyone advocating against bluffing here just because it's low stakes.

With the exception of calling stations that have no clue (Maybe 2% of player pool) even the bad players know that middle pair hands will no be good sometimes. They may still call down if they "put you on AK lol".

Everyone has different goals in poker. My goal is to try to see how good I can become. The only way to achieve that is by getting out of your comfort zone and going for it in spots where you usually don't.

I would size up my flop bet to about 50-55% pot since I will be doing this with my over pairs as well.

If I was in this hand I would probably not give up and go for a 3 barrel. But I would be sizing it up a little bit. I don't remember the stack sizes.

Based on how you described the V I think the best play in the long term would be to give up though in this spot.

I had a hand last week where I went for a 3 barrel against an opponent I shouldn't of and he showed up with pocket 4's to beat me lol. In my head I knew I shouldn't go for it but I went for it anyway.

I will make it clear that my opinions regarding this hand/topic is based on a bigger picture over time, and spesifically aimed at OP with the many HH ive seen from him both on this forum,but also in his pokergoals and challenges thread.

I am not buying the trying to see how good of a player i can become argument. Like, i agree with the statement in a vacuum and that such probably is a goal for many players quite naturally. Its egodriven though,because what youre saying doesent mean you should shoot small birds with cannons. In my definition of "becoming the best player i can be", is the meaning to put my pride/ego away and execute what i truly believe is the best medicine to win at a certain stake or a certain table. At 95 percent of 1/3 tables that medicine is using fundamentals like appropriate preflop hand selection and position,good hand reading/accurate ranging based on paying attention, execute supreme discipline and patience-then valuebetting relentlessly when i have a decent hand. Print money. I always get paid on my good hands, no matter how nitty some will claim that my image is at any given game.Now,this doesent mean that i never bluff, or that i never "mix up" my lines, its just to get the focus calibrated.

You are literally describing why fancy play syndrome is so common at lower stakes. Many players have this unexplainable urge or misconception that they have to do something more than the "boring basic ABC" (wich have gotten unfair negative connotation the way i see it). I dont know where that need comes from, but what i know is that it doesent come from an objective knowledge point of view that says "i need to be running big multistreet bluffs in order to crush 1/3 games". It more often comes from an entitlement tilt point of view with something like "i am so awesome compared to my opponents, and so much better than them so i need to show off all the tools i have in my backpack".

Even aggro maniacs don't always get paid on every good hand. I'm assuming you are using hyperbole.

I'm not saying this is the best spot for a 3 barrel, I'm saying the camp that says don't because it's low stakes are being lazy.

I'm also not advocating that taking lines outside your comfort zone will make you more money than taking the ABC line, especially in the short term. I'm saying if you want to improve you have to push the limits.

You have to live on that razors edge.

You are taking quite a leap here.

+1

Yes, i was obviously not talking in absolute numbers,it was a statement to get the point across. Despite what people may say you simply dont need to bluff alot to get paid at LLSNL either, just to get to another point: you get paid anyway. Infact its funny and very interesting,because i often have a tight image in the games i play, and even so i often get paid bigger and more often than my more laggy spewy bluffy opponents in the same spots. Most likely hand reading,taking max exploitative lines and betsizing comes into play here.

Second bolded is a good clarification that i will say is accurate,so certainly agree on that.

Correct. Basically in 2010 three barreling 60% / 75% / 75% was standard and now solvers do weird sh*t like 20% / 150% / check

It makes a lot of sense in spots exactly like this if you think about it

I typically limp/overlimp KQs in EP/MP as a raise will often not thin the field at my loose table and gets me in some very meh very multiway SPR spots postflop. Much more for raising in LP when we have a better idea of what is going on / will be in position postflop. We got an awesome result (HU, in postion, with initiative, in a nice big manageable SPR 13 pot), but I would just rarely expect this result.

Love our small flop cbet. This will mostly fold whiffed Ax hands while everything else that is ahead was calling anyways, so let's do this for as cheap as possible.

I could certainly see this as a nice turn card to barrel. It's an over so it's a little scary to pairs so we've picked up a bit of FE, plus we've picked up hand equity. This really comes down to our opponent and whether he has a fold Button. I'm not convinced I have much FE against someone described as "somewhat fishy" so I might just lean to taking my free card here.

Nothing really changed on the river, and he could just put us on AK and call again. Besides, our K high has some showdown value against whiffed gutshots + picked up flush draws. I'd check behind.

I know I play a more passive game than most, and I'm assuming having a double/triple barrel club in your bag might be necessary against good players, but against this guy there's really nothing wrong with a one-and-done cheap cbet and take a free card.

ETA: Basically, I'm more on board with Gil's and Feely's thoughts over all. I've just recently finished a settracking experiment attempting to get a handle on IO at my tables (I'm having difficulty coming to conclusions), but one interesting stat I collected was the following; In the ~100 hours where I saw what I considered a preflop profitable setmining spot tabled, there were 19 wins with myself having 3 of these. I'm the tightest nit at the table, and yet I got paid off more than my fair share (making up 16% of the wins whereas my fair share at a 10 handed table would only 10%). Small sample size, for sure, but still. ABC tight boring non-adventurous poker can still do just fine in a lot of LLSNL lineups, imo.

GcluelessNLnoobG