1/3, $325 eff, 5-handed

BTN opens $15 (has been opening a lot),
SB calls,
Hero 3b $65 in BB with KQcc,
BTN calls,
SB folds.

Flop ($145): Jh 9d 5s
Hero bets $80, V calls

Turn ($305): As
Hero shoves for $175 eff

Looks fine to me although it would be better if your stack was a bit deeper so the All in was bigger.

I like it too - The flop arguably was a bit better for V's range than ours, but the turn should smash our range relative to V's.

As played, I'm probably going for it here if you think V's range is wider than normal and has a fold button. $175 should be enough for V to fold Jx or 9x, but I'd prefer to have at least $250-$300 for more fold equity.

He had AKo.

Note: Villain has no fold button.

Help me out here.
It has been mentioned that villains range was better than hero's.
Hero 3bet. Does not that give him a range advantage on that board texture? Or is my understanding of range advantage wrong?

I like hero's line too btw

How often when 3! the BB are we expected to have QT or a Jx type hand? Not very often. So the range advantage certainly isn't ours cause that board doesn't really connect with our BB 3! range.

V is on the button, and has been fairly loose with his opens per OP's read. Therefore he's got a lot more Jx, 9x, and OESD in his range as opposed to ours.

Yes of course. Absolutely no argument against your explanation and thanks.
Maybe I confused the question because I was thinking of the Ace on the Turn? And the subsequent shove on the Turn. I did say " board texture " , and not flop texture. It's usually expected that the 3bettor continues on most flops with most flop texture. But thanks again.

This board favors BTN. While it looks like we have an equity advantage, V has a nut advantage. We only have ~4.5 combos of sets if Hero ever even 3b 99, while V has all of possible sets. We only have partials of TP combos from some suited broadways with a J, since we're not 3b AJs/KJs/QJs/JTs all the time. Villain on the other hand might have continued with ALL Jx broadways, not just the suited ones, so he has more TP than us. Yes we have 18 combos of overs, but V has like 42 top pairs to our ~6-12 (pending how wild we get with KJs/QJs/JTs vs this villain). This also gives V many more straight draws, since he has more QT, T8s, and 87s than us. He has more KQo than us, so more nut gutters w/overs. This is a board V can continue on frequently to a c-bet. I'd chose a lower C-bet sizing on this board overall, like $45 or $50.

Entire post was great but I especially liked the last part.
Although hero and some others might argue that a 80 cbet helps better to GII on following streets.

What I don’t like about these small cbets that are in fashion nowadays is they encourage V to peel even 66 in these spots. So if we’re not double barreling, we’re just lighting money on fire almost everytime.

We’ve got like 99+ here and conceivably every broadway combo except the very worst (fold JTo, call JTs). We absolutely have the range advantage.

Value:
99+ (30 combos)
AJ-QJ (36 combos)

Semi Bluffs:
QT (16 combos)

Bluffs:
AK AQ AT KQ KT (80 combos)

3betting all of our offsuit broadways here gives us too many 3bets. Even 3betting the suited ones 100% is overdoing it. We're like 100bb deep facing a 5x open. Yes, V is widest on the BTN and we have intensive to scoop SB's overcall, so out 3b range should expand, but not as wide as you're suggesting. KJo/QJo/JTo & QTo for sure are easy completes, . AJo can go either way & I think KJs as well. That leaves us with all AJs/QJs & partials of AJo/KJs.

There's a reason they're in fashion. Solvers like them more. Obviously we want to size up as an exploit whenever possible, but there's are reasons to adopt this less exploitative strat. For one, you're not always going to have air that needs to double barrel or lose. We want him continuing on with 66 when we bet our overpairs, top pairs, & TT for example. We want his gutshots floating when they're crushed. We still get to fold out his total air, risking less when we bluff, but we remain respectful of the fact he has more sets and 2p than us. Also, look at the low SPR. When we bet less we can maneuver a bit more. Easier to give up if needed, easier to make a more threatening shove. In general, it's much harder to play against smaller bets when you're on the receiving end of one.

I was taking your comment in context. The only comment above yours about V's range relative to the board was Weiskoda's comparing the flop texture (not the 4-card board) to V's range, so I assumed that's what you were referencing when you said "it has been mentioned," hence why I thought such an explanation was necessary.

Yeah, I want to be clear. I wasn't in any way being critical.
I had a question that I wanted an answer to and I appreciate it.
But I have another question in relation to the flop specifically.
In light of all the opinions so far given.
As a 3 bettor, don't we have AA to TT in our range, this giving us a range advantage also on the flop?

Johny gave us the possibility of 99+, I almost whiffed that.

More pre. 75.

AP shove is fine. He can fold a jack here and if he doesn't, you have up to 10 outs (more like 9), which isn't that bad.

You’re really just saying don’t exploit an exploitable villain because it’s exploitable. 3betting hands well ahead of his BTN range is not overdoing it until he adjusts.

Obviously we should exploit, but that's not the only factor here. We create a really low SPR that we have to play OOP. Meanwhile, we're given good price on a flat. The difficulty of playing KJo/QJo OOP with less than 2 psb left seems to outweigh the usefulness of 3betting here as wide as you suggest. I mean, how much EV do you think we're giving up by flatting offsuit JX with a facecard in it?

This guy is probably opening junk like 75o and J8o at 5x sizing. He needs to be punished for this. He’s going to be folding much of his range and position really doesn’t matter when we have a <2x SPR.

I he opens too much I might not even have a calling range pre.

This is where theory diverges from practice when it comes to 1/3.

Solvers are assuming GTO play from your opponents, and optimal opponent play as defined by these engines would be considered preposterously aggressive at just about any live LLSNL game I've ever played in. Much of our EV from these underbets comes from betting air and inducing folds (which live 1/3ers don't do enough), saving money when we bet our air and get raised (which live 1/3ers don't do enough), and getting paid off when we bet our monsters and get raised (c'mon, you know the words, sing along).

Wrong. Almost everyone doesn't defend anywhere near the optimal amount vs 1/3 bets and/or properly.

Somehow 1/3 is good against an optimal player, yet somehow isn't against a bad player who doesn't know how to react/defend properly at all and ends up overfolding/overspazzing (the most common results vs 1/3, not overfolding)? Doesn't make sense to me. That's like saying go move up in stakes to where they respect your raises.

You can argue that 1/3 isn't the optimal sizing in spots vs certain players or certain dynamics that would have been optimal otherwise in theory, but that statement is pretty off. There is no way live players or most players defend enough vs 1/3 bets. You have to defend so wide that as a human, we'd find it uncomfortable.

Imagine on a monotone board where PFR cbets 1/3 on J32ccc BTN vs BB. You have to start defending hands that don't necessarily have paired up or have a club, and given the extremely small bet you have to defend very wide to avoid being "exploited" (ie MDF). Realistically, hardly anyone does that. Whereas if you bet the "normal" 2/3 BB has a much easier decision. Not saying 1/3 is warranted on most monotone boards fwiw.