I was playing a $1/3 nl game last night and I made a play that I'm pretty sure that I butchered, but was looking for feedback on my line.

UTG+2 limps ($230 stack)
Hero (66) limps in cutoff ($550 stack)
Aggro button raises to $13 ($400 stack)
BB calls $13 ($500 statck)
UTG folds
Hero calls $13

Flop 356 with 2 hearts

BB checks
Hero check
Button bets $25
BB folds
Hero calls

Turn 5 of hearts completing the flush.

Hero checks
Button bets $40
Hero raises to $100
Button folds

I know that I butchered the hand, but I'm wondering what the play is on the turn as played.

Before I get flamed for over limping with 66, let me be clear that this game plays really deep vs opponents who over play hands regularly. In this game, I try cheap set mining vs as many opponents as I can. Gives more opportunities to multiple opponents to mis/overplay their hands.

Thanks in advance for the constructive criticism.

Bet flop. Pre-flop and turn are fine, in my opinion.

I would completely ignore anyone who flames you for limping 66 here. There are a number of ways to play this.

I can make a case to lead or check flop
I can make a case to call or check raise flop. (I wouldve check raised here and prayed he had a big overpair)

Turn play is fine as well. Nothing wrong with how you played. If he had nothing, you made more money this way. If he had an overpair with no heart you may have made less this way.

It is hard to get value OOP but I'd still play all my small pairs at this stack depth in my game OOP.

Postflop it's a tricky one and I'd be happy with all sorts of different lines here. Best line depends on exactly how aggro V is combined with hero image and how wary V will be of you.

E.g if V puts your limping range as only pocket pairs and thinks you rarely bluff then I'd actually be tempted to slow play this all the way to the river (yikes!). X/c 2 streets, look uncomfortable doing it and then try to x/r the river or put in a small river lead to induce. If V is very aggressive he may decide to try to bluff raise you off a small pair (44 77-99) with his overcards or thin value raise/bet with his overpairs. V needs to be capable of triple barelling ideally.

E.g. if V is quite oblivious to you or you have a loose image then I prefer leading flop and keeping betting.

E.g if you're viewed as bluffy I might x/r the flop like I tried to draw cheaply but now I'm turning my 4X, 87 or FD into a semibluff.

I do think the flop x/c, turn x/r is probably the most scary line since it looks like a flush or 5X (54 A5 K5s 85s 53s). It's still going to work when V has overpair+FD or a flush but you'll lose a lot of bare overpairs if you are perceived as ABC.

Still, V probably folded because he had overcards and was just double barreling hoping the flush card would scare you off a small pair or straight draw.

I think my image is unpredictable. I think the butchering came in the sizing of my check raise on the turn or check raising at all. I know it doesn't seem like a big difference but I think c/r to $90 or check calling are the best options after the fact. I have to allow mid over pairs the chance to catch a possible flush or for villain to continue bluffing. My turn play bothers me. Seems like there's was more money to be made.

Your turn raise looks very committing. You've put in 13+25+100 =138 out of a 400 effective stack. This kind of raise is probably the scariest, highest FE raise in the game precisely because it looks callable but is very committing.

In Super System Doyle Brunson states that his game basically revolves around putting weak/tight players to tough decisions with bets/raises that get a total of 20 to 25% of effective stacks in. He's leveraging his whole stack because his opponents know the rest is going in so frequently later on that they are really making a decision for stacks right now, not a decision for $60. He's making these moves with semibluffs and, when folk catch on, made hands.

An unpredictable image makes you difficult to call (like Doyle). If you were predictably over the top aggro or bluffy (or rather appear so) then this line has more going for it as a value play.

I think a shove or a min raise look less scary than the precise sizing you used. Min raise could look like "finding out where you're at" shove could be trying to force a fold with AdXx. Small raise is probably best as it let's him keep drawing dead if he has a high diamond. It tells a consistent story: I drew at my small flush, hit it and now my min raise is for value". V can call any hand with Jd or better (in my game at least). You then have 10 diamonds that could come on the turn that allow V to lose his stack.

Flop is the problem here, I either donk out or check-raise and probably the x/r with an aggro button.

Turn, well you have to get a raise in somewhere before the river, so fine.

Pre is a trivial call to the raise. I overlimp here myself because these games are so passive you just have very little fold equity. Online (or in any reasonably tight game) I'd raise to iso UTG+2 and then cbet favourable boards; here you just get 4 callers anyway so why bloat the pot without the set?

Pre is fine. I check-raise the flop against the aggro button all day long, however. You want to get value now, before a turn card hits that either freezes the action or improves him to a winning hand.

I'm not sure you made a mistake. Every time the Villain doesn't do what you want them to do, doesn't mean you made a mistake. Just like every time they do what you want, doesn't make you Phil Ivey.

But given how passive you sound, don't you agree that it's a pretty easy fold for the Villain to fold when you check-raise the turn?

For all the people saying you should've donk bet the flop, have the people you've been playing with seen you donk bet draws and stack off on the flop with them? You know the way the table viewed you better than anyone else does.

WereBeer and Marquoz make good points, flop is the time to get started building the pot. Your range is perceived as widest so most likely to induce further action and you get going before scare cards freeze the action on turn.

Not in love with our seat sitting directly to the right of a deep aggro player. The only time this is going to work out good for us is with big TP type hands where we can limp/reraise preflop to setup good SPRs, but otherwise being OOP to this guy is just going to suck. Seat change.

I'm either/or the first time around preflop. I think overlimping is fine. I also think raising is fine too. With this guy behind us, I'm more for overliming.

There is probably some argument for reraising the second time around, but I think I'm happy enough just to take this cheap price and see a flop and more-or-less setmine.

I'd also check this flop expecting Villain to stab at a 3way pot often. I like giving poor 2:1 odds for draws, so I'd check/raise to about $115. We have a huge hand and in general want to make a huge pot, we don't do that by flatting early streets.

In the end, although I don't like this line, I also can't hate on it *too* much because it is probably the case against this guy that he doesn't have anything most of the time, so actually taking a very passive line (heck, maybe even just tank/calling the turn bet and hoping he attempts a 3rd barrel) might even be the most profitable line against him (it depends on his 3barrel tendencies).

ETA: After reading other responses, if we have a tightish image and villain is bluffy/aggro, I think we weren't too far off a decent line here (i.e. Rage's suggestion of check/calling all the way to the river before we then do a check/raise or scared looking donk to induce). This of course isn't the standard line against your typical LLSNL opponent, but against this guy (if he's capable of 3barrelling) it might be best.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I don't think this line is too bad. It's a very strong line is the only problem, so if V is capable of making a decent fold he will. However I think we get paid by over pairs with a heart, flushes and trips by a lot of players with this line.

Alternatively, I prefer to lead flop with a set here. This allows us to dictate the bet-sizing and set up to play for stacks. It's also less intimidating for v to call 3 barrels than to call a turn check-raise.

Effectively, we limp-called with a pocket pair and hit a set OOP and without initiative. This is a very common spot that can provide a lot of value, and is one of the few times that an otherwise aggressive player will end up with a monster without initiative and OOP.

My default every time I flop a set as the pre-flop caller w/o position is to lead about pot-sized. I prefer this because I feel like betting three streets is less threatening than check-raising, and it's often a line that people take with a medium strength made hand. So, my first inclination here is just to lead flop for $40 or so.

There are a couple of reasons why I wouldn't lead, but none really apply here. If there were several other players in the hand who had already checked, and PFR is aggressive, I prefer a check, hopefully several calls, and then to check-raise. However, you're only 3-way here. If stacks were really deep, such that a check-raise was necessary to allow you to stack someone, I'd also consider it, but that's not the case here either. Finally, if stacks were short such that V is committing himself via c-betting, I'm more apt to check.

I will say that the mere fact that V is aggressive is not enough for me to check flop. A lot of aggressive Vs can fold to a check-raise, and I don't want to let him away from the hand.

Finally, if I am going to check-raise at all, I'd rather do it on the flop rather than the turn. I can't prove it but believe that flop raising looks bluffier than turn raising. I guess this is a corollary of the Beluga Theorem.

Think I'd be much cooler with a donk line if Villain likely had something (ex. against a tight Villain who raised preflop). In this case, aggro Villain most likely doesn't have anything, so all donking done is let him fold his air.

GimoG