Have you seen any hands where V was involved where he didn't have the betting lead on the flop?

Not really. He overlimped once in MP and bet out a near PSB when it checked to him OTF. He took it down. Other than that, it has all been him raising pre, and (so far) 100% c-bet. Only once so far has the hand gone beyond flop (see post above?

Once you choose to 3 bet pre and fast play your nines i mean you pretty much has to C-bet a flop with this texture. Low flops with one picture card are nice ones to C-bet, because many hands in your villains range will miss completely.

Villain has to give up AK here, and its very hard for him to call a reasonably sized bet here even with a hand strong as TT due to the overcard on the flop and the bloated 3 bet pot who leaves little room for postflop manouvering.

To 3 bet pre with 99 OOP and not to C-bet on this board makes no sense to me so i want to continue with aggression here.

As sick as it sounds I think we have to b/f now. I wouldn't go overboard with it though. 130-140. You put yourself in a really horrible spot though by overplaying your hand/position, homie.

I think I like 3-bet and b/f line here in most spots as an unknown against this player. I don't think he's going to continue here without a range that's solidly ahead. Moreover, by 3! preflop the hand plays itself and we don't have to rely on guesswork on multiple streets OOP. Bloating the pot with 99 isn't a bad thing in this spot.

flatting seems good and playing postflop. You arent really trying to make much money from the regular if you assume he is pretty solid; most of your profits will come from allowing the fish to come along. Also, vs a solid LAG, 99 probably isnt going to play super well post flop in an inflated pot, so I'd rather flat, keep the fish in, and play from there. Worst case if the fish fold, we still have 99 in a single raise pot and we will have some thinking to do post flop

We arnt bloating pot that bad by 3 betting. We have an SPR of 4 if we flat. We have SPR of 3 of we raise. Which in reality doesn't play much different postflop. I do tend to 3 bet smaller OOP. As I have found players have static 3 bet calling range. 2.5x is probably my avg.

As played. Think we need to bet/fold. This flop doesn't hit his range nearly has well as it hits ours. As we could expect him to 4 bet AK, AA, KK.





His continue

I'd bet at least $120 planning to shove the turn.

It gets really interesting if he raises the flop. Posters ITT are divided on this, with
most saying fold so far.

flatting is probably a bit better than 3b, although its moderately close (and folding is absurd).

b/f is probably fine otf and then x/f turn if called. considering description, im open to the idea that x/c>b/f, but hed have to basically never use his check button postflop

With the given info, flatting 99 from BB is much more optimal than 3betting. I don't think that the preflop decision is very close at all.

With that said, I could get behind a 3bet if reads were different.

All the mumbo jumbo about initiative and having a hard time getting to showdown with unimproved Nines is just that...mumbo jumbo.

If Villain is really cbetting and barreling way too much in general, then you can adjust simply by NOT FOLDING unimproved 99 postflop.

As played, flop is a clear cbet.

As for all the nonsense about donking certain flops...why would we want to donk any of our value hands when Villain is auto-cbetting at almost 100% frequency?

In case you don't know, auto-cbetting with nearly 100% frequency is a big leak. If Villain has this big postflop leak, then we should encourage him to keep doing it by checking to the raiser.

Donking against this kind of Villain seems really bad/fishy.

What do you think villain is raising with preflop? What do you think villain is calling with if we 3bet? If villain is competent the difference in hand strengths between the two is quite wide which is the primary reason I don't like the 3bet pre.

Flat pre. If youre gonna b/f this flop after committing that much of stack then 3b pre is absurd. That means you now believe his call narrowed his range to one that beats you. Then why 3b????

In fact this is a really good flop for you. Only one over and it ensures all decent naked diamonds gonna stick around. So pretty lucky there.

If people genuinely belive we are 3bing for value then this is surely one of those rare board where you could continue to do so? All diamonds will pay now.

As played i c/shove. Underreps your hand to look like a naked diamond draw, thus he could conceivably call you with worse.

Im so confused about a lot of posters advocating 3b pre and then b/f now especially w range widening effect of this monotone flop, both on his and his perception of yours.

I really don't know what we are doing in that kind of approach: bluffing with middle strength hand pre/post, or driving action post coz he is gonna call off total air? The first is silly the second is unrealistic

Imho

think flatting is better than 3betting esp from the bb as opposed to the sb. were not purely set mining. we can still have the best hand vs him and the limpers at showdown with 99 on many boards.

3b is ok, i guess. its going to be +ev, but prob not as much as flatting will be.

as played, id be check/calling flop. cbet is probably just ok, but we have better hands to cbet bluff with and cbet for value. hard to get value from worse, hard to fold out better, and as for equity protection - imo most hands that we need protection from that hes going to fold, hes just going to bet himself when you check.

going to be hard to continue ott and otr if he decides to keep betting, which is fine. we are at the bottom of our range or close to it so calling flop and folding to a turn bet is not too bad. if he wants to 3barrel bluff off here with anything just because you checked after 3betting then just start checking your good hands to him and call a little more.

I see it as a bad flop because it gives a good opponent with position a lot of bluff outs on the turn if he calls a bet on the flop. And he seems loose enough to call light and smart enough to be aggressive often enough to be annoying when those bluff outs come.

I'd consider taking a line that might make villain concerned that I am being tricky with a strong hand. I probably wouldn't do it, but I'd at least think about how he would interpret my hand if I c/c flop and lead the turn.

I probably wouldn't have 3bet pre this early in a session against an unknown with this sort of hand as I usually go through a feeling out process to get more data before putting myself in spots that can be difficult decisions. I'd much rather 3bet light with junk than with a hand that will make me sad that I didn't flat if he 4bets.

Grunch - pre-flop

If we flat we are looking at a $70 pot if others fold for an SPR of 9. If others call obviously SPR drops to 5 or 4. In that situation I think we either have to hit a set or get a flop with under cards.

But a set can play well multi-way (and we will already have 2 or 3-1 and only need 2 pot size bet calls and we get what we need to justify being in this pot.) Also, calling leaves the initiative with the habitual cbetter so we could take advantage of his aggressive tendencies instead of being OOP as the aggressor.

If we raise to say, $80, then even with one caller we have $170 in the pot and SPR of 3.5 and less implied odds if we do hit our set. But we have initiative so a flop cbet could take the pot if we were against a less aggressive villain. With a solid aggressive villain, he might re-raise or float.

I like a check, looking to set mine against the LAG.

What is my plan on boards if I flat?

Under-cards I am ok with betting big on a dry board with no overs (there aren't many of those because there's less room for gaps.) With a couple overs, I feel a little lost. I probably c/f which means I have to be able to maximize value when I do hit sets. So now I'm wondering if this is raise or fold situation?

You don't think V plays much more straightforward postflop w/o initiative?

easy call pre. likely that our immediate odds turn into 3:1. my desire to play bloated pots out of position against a guy that i suspect will not easily concede a pot is nil. my concern with folding the best hand in a 4 way pot isn't that great. it might happen, but if it does, shrug.

if we flop a set, i have no problem checking to villain three times if necessary. if we flop a set and someone else calls flop, i probably lead turn to trap that guy because even suicidal vs won't bet turn with air after two c/c on a flop.


as played, i'm torn between conceding on the flop and just taking a stab. as described, i don't think villain is the sort to just give up a hand, but it's possible he doesn't have a diamond either and will just give it up. i probably end up betting like 125 and regretting it pretty much immediately.

+1. I only like a 3bet here if he folded way too much of his isoing range or if he was isoing hands like K2s, 86s, Q8s, ect. and calling the 3bet IP with them, but with the read that he cbets every board it's probably more +EV to let him get out of line on the flop anyway.

As played I'm still not sure what the most +EV line is on the flop. Check/calling seems attractive since we would expect him to fire air on this board with a high frequency when checked to but there are so many bad turns and rivers that even though check/calling flop might be +EV I don't think the entire hand will play out that way. Bet/folding is also meh because it's basically just trying to get him to fold his equity with hands that have 2 overs without a diamond and if he calls it's doubtful that a pair of 9's win at showdown unimproved.

I am really surprised why so many people are advocating for a flop check/call with black 99 on Q54ddd flop after 3betting preflop.

Turning black 99 into a bluff (with sometimes/often the best hand) seems very appropriate here. We can definitely get better hands to fold (namely TT/JJ with no diamond), and we can also fold out hands that have high equity versus our specific holding.

Check/call to induce a bluff doesn't really make sense because a hand like AxJd (14 outs versus us) may start bluffing as a tiny favorite over our hand when Villain would often have just sigh-folded a hand like AxJd to a cbet.

CR shove has some/a lot of merit if we think that Villain is auto-stabbing behind us very often if we check flop though.

Cliffs: Cbet = CRAI >> Check/call.

I'm at a loss here... it's such a bad spot. If his range here is as wide as I think it is we should cbet half pot and hope he goes away

I agree with cbet as equity protection and/or bluff, but i dont agree with cbet = crai because 1) he could be checking back playing more straightforward in a 3bet pot and you are giving him a free card, and 2) it's just really bad to crai because you just get called so much lighter due to stack sizes when you just really want a fold instead of show down.

I only introduced CRAI as a good alternative line if Villain was auto-stabbing way more than he should. FWIW, I probably cbet here the vast majority of the time.

If Villain is playing semi-passively versus a check, then cbet is better than CRAI. If Villain auto-stabs with a high frequency behind a check, then CRAI is arguably better.

Cbet versus CRAI is really a reads-based distinction. Check/call is pretty clearly the worst of all options in the absence of reads on how aggro Villain will actually play in a 3bet pot facing a check on this flop.

I do understand that SPR is only 2.5...making it somewhat awkward for CRAI to have maximum FOLD EQUITY.

That is one good argument against CRAI.

Actually I love CRAI since it should get a fold from Qx no diamond and we don't have to see turn and river OOP. Thanks DC.

Of course that's assuming he stabs pretty wide on this board when checked to which I'm pretty sure most 2/5 lags would.