That would be one good thing but I don't think you understand why you are betting and figuring that out would be far more beneficial. Not wanting to get outplayed being one horrendous reason.

I mean, I have no idea why I even brought it up, as the opponent here clearly has a narrow range here, and he will stack off with all of his hands except MAYBE 98 and 86. In LLSNL, people have a problem folding after raising, anyway (they either are maniacs who overvalue hands OR people who only raise with monsters), so a 3bet in this situation is indeed spewy, IMO.

you constantly make straw men arguments when you don't understand a line...

No, this is just ridiculous.

the villain is not limp calling kk, qq 99, and kq. Villain also cannot be raising this flop with two diamonds and an over unless he has exactly a/x, here there are several other combos.

The two different board textures are completely different, and not realizing that shows a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge for the game...

This shows that you clearly don't understand the merit of checking back here which means that you probably shouldn't be calling it a bad play if you understand it...

Obviously 3bet/fold is the worst imaginable line to take.

So you take out the set combos (although 99 can def limp call) but he has more j10o combos than 57s suited. This board does not "smack his limp calling range. Players like picture cards.

I can quite clearly see the benefits of checking.

1 Pot control. We get more chance of getting to showdown with a medium strength hand. We don't risk getting c/r by a range with very good equity against out hand but lots of hands we are ahead of at the moment.

2.We are probably not getting 3 streets of value from worse anyway.

3.We can realise out equity against his monsters.

4.We might induce bluffs on later streets (LOL)

etc.

Don't mistake people disagreeing with a failure to understand. That is exceptionally arrogant.

I just don't think all these benefits outweigh the benefit of betting.

I don't understand why I'm c-betting or 3- betting? In my mind seems easy C-bet as my hand is beating a-lot of his range trying to charge draws, value, folding out kq etc. Plus i more of less would get a better feel for where i am in the hand.

I 3 bet because i felt he was trying to outplay and to gain some info which is stupid because check- raising here means he has a big hand and maybe a big draw but i have 10d so it takes a lot of those draws away so its more often a big hand already made.

Overall what im taking from this is respect the check raise more in live pokers.

Oh his limp, his range is more ranged at j10 and 89's more than sets he because he raises most of his 88+. He would only check call his straight draws and i block alot of those j10's which my 10 10 and esp with the 10d.

3 betting this is really bad unless vs a total spewtard with draws and isnt great even then.

Checking the flop back is just as bad IMO. I choose the bet size on the flop. We check back the flop and villain can pot the turn with his entire range and we have to call since we induced. Im never checking this flop back. There isnt a card hardly in the deck we want to see fall on the turn.

I agree with one qualifier:

--Your opponent always has 2 pair or better.

In LLSNL, this is frequently the case.

In a game like 5/10, your will be c/red by many opponents with pairs + draws, TPTK, and air. A value bluff is suitable for a game in which bluff raising is common. 1/2 is not one of these games--a c/r here is done purely for value 95% of the time.

I have been c/red here vs. thinking players because they thought "I missed the flop". Against them, we either 3bet, call them in 3 spots (and feel sick doing it), or fold the better hand.

AintNoLimit, a serious question, is the third option OK? I mean, it just seems so exploitable to always fold an overpair at the first sign of aggression, especially on a board where draws can compose a good part of an opponent's range.

the 10/j example is a completely irrelevant argument because villain is raising far more straight + pair combos than there are 10/j combos.

Players raise picture cards too, they don't limp/call 100%. Taking away 2-2.5 of the 3 possible set combos makes a HUGE difference too.

Any decent villain knows that your likely stack off range here is usually going to be overpairs and not 2 pair on the 9 high board, so he's less likely to raise hands like a/xs as his overcard could not be good. On the k/q exmple we have far more 2 pair hands in our range.

Finally if villain is limp/calling k/q and j/q etc, then he's got even more hands with 2 over cards making this an even worse cbet and killing that point as well.

I think we are now talking about different things. I'm not advocating how to play on the board I gave, merely pointing out that not betting the actual board in this hand because "it smacks his limp calling range" is not correct IMO. On this board he doesn't have some huge number of combos that are ahead of us because people tend to play suited lower cards but suited and offsuit higher cards, hence weighting their range to things that missed this board. Even more so after card removal effect.

you're "charging" very many draws as just about every draw out there is 50% or favored to win the pot. You're just value cutting yourself, giving them a chance to push you out of the pot and giving up your positional advantage.

You're only getting advantage from exclusively 9/x hands which make a very small % of his range here.

By betting you're essentially bluffing with your hand.

3 bet folding is bad everywhere. Really.

stove an accurate range and you'll find that it hits this flop a lot harder than your example. And like I said if he is actually limp/calling those hands, which we don't know and is a bad assumption, then he's got a ton more fd + over combos.

Yer i guess we all agree the 3 bet folding is ******ed and no one who reads this thread will ever do it again hopefully. But is the C/C line good here? bluegrass makes a good argument i can't help but to think it sounds sound lol. (not being result orientated)

What is an accurate range in your opinion? Obviously if we disagree on that stoving is pointless.

If we fail to c-bet, what do we do, fold to a turn bet? If we call, we do the same thing that a c-bet would accomplish, only we have no idea where we are in the hand and missed fold equity on the flop if it existed.

The villain here is tight. Its hard for me to imagine villains at 1/2 check raise bluffing flops but i guess if you say so. (ive never played it but the players i see sitting in the games i just cant see it)

As for the above, 3 bet folding is never ever in life an option. You dont stick half your stack in a pot figuring out if you are good, then fold.

As for folding overpairs, i can tell you that i know for a fact that in 2/5 when vs a tourist type player or even a reasonable regular (not too tricky) that if you folded an overpair everytime the flop came 976 with 2 spades that it would be +EV. In fact, that is one of the biggest errors that online 6max players make when venturing into live games. They give the flop raise a range of combo draws, NFD, etc, whenin fact the real range is basically 2pair+.

Now if you see a player raising these ranges then use it vs him. But the average range is very narrow. At least at Bellagio, Wynn, Aria, etc.

Another note: Overplaying medium pairs is a huge leak among somewhat new players. (and i mean players playing as long as a couple of years or more)

most suited connectors low pocket pairs and suited aces.

How is not cbetting and calling a turn bet the same thing? If we call a turn bet we don't give him an opportunity to raise thus keeping the small pot for our hand which needs a small pot, and we also kill half his equity because now he only has the river to improve.

Any turns you fold on?

Oh and I think your pre flop range is crap, so that explains a lot of the difference in everything else.

tons, thats half the point of checking back the flop. We want a cheap decision on a gross turn card.

Which ones? As I said before, I can see there are some benefits of checking the flop but you seem incapable of acknowledging that you are also fining ways of gifting a 20BB pot to villain.

ANL, I play mainly 5/10 where I see raises on the flop occur a lot with hands as weak as TPTK, so I am inadvertently and inappropriately bringing in this experience when making my assessment.

Yesterday, I was raised on a VERY similar flop with JJ: T97ss. Villain checked, I bet $80, villain raised to $215, and I re-raised to $425, which the villain folded. I would rather take it down against a bluff than need to look up the turn and river without defining my opponent's hand.

that depends on so many factors...

anyways I've said what I want to say, not gonna drag this out into a 5 page discussion.

check flop, as played super easy fold.

How can people get to 5/10 and want to fold out opponents air? Your last sentences show massive fundamental flaws in your thinking. Whatever hand he folded must have had ~15 equity. We want him to put more money in with that hand.

Blue, i have to give it to him. He can come up with some way out logic that i have to admit could certainly twist a lot of players thinking around if ur not careful. And honestly Blue, I really enjoyed reading and how a player might come up with what would seem a logical choice.

Done get me wrong, I am against the logic 100%, but i still love him.

The only time i would ever in life check this flop is vs a player who will bluff 100% twice if i check back flop. This would be super rare. Checking is awful, it does not matter that the flop hits his range more than ours. It really doesnt even matter that every now and then villain might raise a combo draw and we fold the best hand.

OP, this concept is a big one. It will leak over into damn near every pot u play. My advice is to dwell on this a bit, not only in this hand, but others as well.

Calling is the weakest play in poker for a reason.

Yes, we always want our opponents to put in more money with air. We also need to know that our opponent actually...you know, has air. A villain with a polarized range will likely play both monsters and bluffs the same way, and do we really want to put up $1000 against a range with quite a few monsters and a few bluffs taking advantage of the board texture? It is -EV in the long run...and the more I think about it, the more I think folding here is the better option than 3bet/folding.

But I think peeling here is the absolute worst option when we know that the opponent is going to come out firing on the turn.