OP asks a lot of rather basic questions in ways that seem to indicate that he's missing some fundamentals and some ability to note details. Not a slam. We all went through that stage. Most of us did it at 1/2 or the online micros, though.

We have the possibility to win 18x the raise, so even though we are OOP the PF call is prob OK. It will be hard to extract OOP, though.

Disagree that we are doing anything other than set mining. AK is always c-betting from any V that 3-bets it pre, and on what boards would we ever continuing? Maybe 332. Even then, we have to check turn and river and hope that he gives up after we call the c-bet.

Being OOP sucks.

Nailed it

probably open less pre, now fold. and if you made a curious call on the flop, c/f most turns, which is pretty much why u fold the flop.

He's checking sometimes. And there are (relatively rare) scenarios where our equity plus a smallish betsize let us call the flop.

I don think it's a point worth emphasizing. I only said it because I dont think ore flop merits much discussion. It's a call.

Bet flop $150.

Very interesting. What's your rationale for donking into 3-bet aggressor?

Is betting into every 3-bettor called donk betting, or only when you not have much?

Anyway, it's better than a x/c of $180, or a x/r for what might be a pot committal with something that can only beat a small pair or A-high.

You have to decide to x/f or turn your hand into a bluff here, if you have specific reads.

There's some cards you can lead for $250 on the turn with. Any jack, 8 or 5. Any Ace. 10's, 9's, 7's 6's are folding to a turn bet, if they smooth flop. Unlikely you'd get floated by AK here, so betting an A on the turn would win it more often than not. Queens and kings will fold here too, if they didn't raise flop and kick themselves for not raising.

You CAN bet the flop. But not so much. I probably still wouldn't. but if I had more history that suggested he folds something like AK to a flop lead then its fine to lead $120 or something.

How is leading flop better than check folding?

One of those two has a 0% chance of winning the pot.

If you are check-folding every flop without a 9 or one where your 9's are an under-pair, then you're reading your opponent for a better pair and should have folded to his 3-bet. Why would you call the extra $50 in that case? Set mine with implied odds? Calling to defend your image for future opens you'll do? Praying for a nine?

It doesn't make sense to compound one mistake with another. Leading the flop will rarely win you the pot there, and will get you into a ton of sticky spots on later streets (you'll end up turning your hand into a bluff or using it as a bluffcatcher). It's not the end of the world to concede the pot now.

You missed the point. The point was: Why call the 3-bet if you plan to check-fold missed flops? What does calling pre-flop there accomplish? Either limp-call trying to set mine cheap or, as played, lead out. Checking is bad. He can flop bet his entire 3-bet range.

The mistake is then calling the 3-bet. Personally, I think it's better to l/c here. You can x/f much cheaper that way.

I agree with folding pre if we're not set-mining. However, I would prefer a lead in this spot with a stronger holding, especially since our image is pretty bad right after getting stacked. AK will likely call most flops and we're getting looked up by any pair IMO. Which is why I feel that when we lead flop, we're

a) either committing ourselves to turn our hand into a bluff and fire turn and river, or
b) forced to check all blank turns and give him an opportunity to take the pot away

We are also taking away his opportunity to bet the flop as a bluff (although we allow him to bluff-raise which we obviously have to fold to)

Obviously this shows why folding pre is the best option and we're in agreement. IMO a lead either puts us in tough spots on later streets, or takes away his bluffs (in which case we make the minimum).

EDIT: Also to OP, I don't know why we're opening 5x in this spot. I think an open to $35 is just as effective (although it's true we don't really know the table dynamics). But if you think you are likely to get 3bet a lot it gives you more wiggle room and decreases the amount of $ you lose when you do fold pre (l/c is an option as well but generally weak IMO).

First of all, I think setmining for implied is fine here. Secondly, if we donk flop...

For value... are we getting worse to call? Nope.
For bluff.. are we getting better to fold? Maybe TT but likely not - so also no.

So why are we betting?

My line would be limp and 3bet to a raise, bet strong on a lower than 10 flop. as played just fold. any overpair and Jx are better.

So you'd rep a very narrow/premium range vs UTG+1's raise? Hmm...

I like to play this move with 66-AA and if the table knows me then I'd also do it with A2-A9s if the raiser is not tight, hopefully squeezing 4-5 players and staying heads up against a weaker hand (SC or broadway)

just a move that proves to be +EV lately

Actually, you missed the point. Your post inherently assumes that we will be facing a 3b nearly 100% of the time, which is obviously absurd. We choose to open raise 99 bc it is a very good hand that will do well against calling ranges, and we also would like to win the blinds. We are then faced with a decision of whether to call a min 3b or not (notice that we are not offered the option of going back and limp/calling now). You also seem to believe that we will only be able to make the preflop call profitable by donking some % of flops, and justify it by saying that we cannot win if we c/f. Once we arrive at the flop, we have to make a separate decision, and choosing to have a donking range on this board vs his min 3b range is probably going to be pretty bad for all the normal poker reasons like better never folds and worse never calls (with the caveat that we actually might get floated a decent amount and will be forced to c/f a later street, making the lead even worse). Honestly, if you are going to do stuff like this on the flop, you probably should just fold to the 3b. If you are going to be reasonable post flop, then calling the 3b is fine.

Open less pre, fold to this large flop bet

Maybe so.

It seems that calling the 3-bet should have another course of action, besides x/folding flop. If intending to play a flop, it's better to get there cheaply. Yes, 99 is a hand that should get some value. Yes, we're going to be ahead of most calling ranges. But it plays poorly UTG for an open raise, and opening it like that is problematic - with this OP being a good example.

It is not inherently better to see a flop cheaply, it just happens that when people start putting more money in by 3 betting, ranges shrink and we don't do as well against their 3b range. However, we opened utg and actually shouldn't expect to be 3b very often (there are good players that don't have a 3b range vs a reasonable utg opener), and the fact that we did get 3b and now have only a marginally profitable spot does not imply that our original open is not profitable. 99 is plenty strong enough to open utg, and this hand does not provide evidence to the contrary.

*error* Not even AA? :P

It's inherently better to see a flop cheaply* imo.



Bolded is debatable.

no, it is not. you believe this because of the reason that i followed that statement up with, which is that, generally, as more money starts to go in preflop, 99 does poorly against the ranges that are putting said money in. this, of course, says nothing about whether it is inherently better to see a flop cheaply. if you were somehow able to go all-in preflop with 99 vs a range of ATC, this would be a great situation. in general, if the ranges didnt change as more money went in, you would likely prefer a lower SPR with 99, and to keep putting in money preflop.

in the literal sense of the word, yes it is.

what are stack sizes.

probably call flop.

$1000