£1/£2 weekday afternoon session.
7 handed.
Effective stack around £350.
Hero had 9♣T♣ at HJ.

LJ (young inexperienced player) limped, hero opened to £10.
Button (reg, semi-pro at least, tag, ) 3 bet to £35.
LJ called, hero called. If LJ had not called I would have folded as well.

Flop came A♦K♣9♥，hero hit button pair.
LJ checked, hero checked, button tank checked.

Turn was 5♣，now hero picked up a flush draw.
LJ checked, hero bet £40 into a pot of £108, button called, LJ folded.

River was T♠，hero didn't complete the flush but now got two pairs.
I thought for quite a while, till this stage it was still very difficult to narrow down button's hand strength. He definitely could have a lot of slow played AA, AK, KK, and even AT would be higher two pair than ours. I considered putting in a blocker bet, but struggled to determine the correct size to not look so obvious. After a minute or so, hero checked.

Button thought for 10 seconds then made a pot size bet of £180.

Hero again thought for a long time, called, hoping that villain had QQ or JJ and turned it into a bluff, but he had KK so we lost.

On reflection, I do not like my call at the river.
When counting villain's hand combinations, I could make the call given that I just need to be right once every three times, and villain was definitely capable of turning something like A3cc, 67cc or JJ into a bluff. However in reality at £1/£2 at this casino, you just don't see so many pot size bet over £150 as bluffs (maybe 10% of the time, and only from certain players).

Another question is whether it is better to bet fold or check call at this river?
If bet fold, what size?
If check call, what's the max villain bet I will then fold?

Bet a size that targets QQ/JJ, KQ which is what he will have often.

So probably like 95.

I would still fold pf btw, it's not a good hand to have vs a button 3bet range oop. You're going to get shet on a lot on most broadway boards. You're going to get "coolered"
way more than the other way around.

As you can see you have two pair on a passive line and are still lost.

I don't really see the purpose of the turn bet. Is it a bluff/semi bluff? If we're trying to fold out better, our sizing leaves a bit to be desired, as the only better hands our opponents might fold is basically QQ-TT. The other downside is the possibility to get blown off our hand by either LJ x/r turn or button having a strong flop check-back and now raising us.

As played, I think I bet ~50-60 on river. We're looking for value from QQ/JJ, KQ, maybe some Ax that checked back flop. It's pretty difficult for described V to bluff or value own himself in this spot a lot of the time, so I really don't like check-call, and I hate calling his blast on the river. Big bets mean big hands for so many players at this stake.

I fold pre and AP bet turn way bigger like overbet even.

T9s is a pure call vs a 3bet. It doesn't matter what the limper does.

But in theory the limper calling would make us play tighter. Suited connectors play much better heads up than multi way as well.

Axs is (are?) the only hand class that prefers multi way action when deep. Bc it gives us more chances to cooler smaller flushes

As for the hand it self, I don't see any reason to bet turn. We don't need protection since we have the fd and we're never getting called by worse

As played bet like half pot. Ppl don't bluff enough at these stakes so your ev comes from value-betting instead of bluff catching

The reasons I chose to bet the turn were: 1. it looks stronger than my actual hand. 2. it is cheaper than if villain made a half size pot and I would then have to call anyway. 3. I fully expected to fold to a turn raise to £100+, which didn't happen.

After the hand villain told me he put me in AQ hence the pot size bet. Initially I was surprised how can most(majority?) players call this river with AQ? After reading the comments, I learned that even some players would call a half pot size bet at the river with KQ, QQ and JJ - I must not have been thin betting enough previously because I always thought that only terrible players would call with that range (maybe players with bottom 20% skills even at this stake level).

Image wise, I believe that even if the worse players would call let's say £90 at the river with KQ, QQ, they wouldn't make such calls to me, maybe partly because I am female. And the better ones would have probably thrown these hands away before the river.

To be honest if he made the river bet at around 70% pot, I was more likely to fold. Pot size bet just looked more bluffy to me.

It was great seeing different thoughts and strategies.

At those stacks I'm snap folding to the 3bet, but the raise pre was fine.

As played I would snap fold the river, he was the 3bettor in the hand so most of his range beats us almost.

We should probably fold to the 3B pre.

If we call, and the flop checks through, I'd probably be checking again on turn. If we bet, V could raise with thick value, or just call with a pair + better flush draw, like AcXc. V could also have a fair bit of AK here, that slow-played the flop, to give us a chance to catch up.

If we just check-call the turn, and the flush draw misses, but the T brings in QJ, and we make 2P, I might take a block-bet size of 40% pot, and fold to a raise. It's unlikely V is going to raise as a bluff or with a worse value hand when the flush draw misses.

He can call with a lot of worse hands, because it looks like we're trying to rep an unlikely straight with our busted flush draws. He's not likely to put us on a rivered 2P that was just bottom pair on the flop that turned a BDFD. Our busted flush draws will mostly be some weak Ax.

As played, I probably just check-call a reasonable sized bet on the river, to induce V to bluff or value-bet with a worse hand. We should have some stronger hands in our river checking range, and a weakish 2P would seem to fit the bill. I could see calling up to 1/2 pot on the river.

When he bets pot, we can just fold.

From V's perspective, when we bet turn, it looks like we were on a flush draw, maybe 1P + a draw, or just a weakish top or 2nd pair. Maybe the T improved us to 2P with AT, KT, or T9, so he's targeting those hands for value.

He's unlikely to be betting this size with worse than T9. He can have all the AA, AK, KK, A5s, ATs, A9s, TT, and 99 when he takes this sizing. He doesn't need to turn Ax, QQ, JJ or Kx into a bluff when we check, because he can just check back and expect to win often enough.

I like your analysis.

Apart from my own play, I have also been thinking if we were the villain who had the set, facing such a small bet on the turn (£40 into £108) , is it worth raising?

I suspect the reason he did not raise was that he wanted to keep the LJ (weakest player at the table) in the hand with probably a small Ax or small pocket pairs. Button's range included the strongest hands with this board texture, such as AA, KK, AK, and it would be a disaster if a raise lead to both two other players folding.

At the same time if the river is another ♣ and flush gets there, KK may regret not raising the turn. Any suggestions?

I don't understand the question "any suggestions"? For you, or for him, if you were in his place?

I don't love how he played his hand.

When V flops a set of K's, on this board, as played, he obviously knows his hand is good. His flop check-back as the PFR, last to act, is pretty sneaky. My guess is he was tanking to consider the merits of betting or checking for deception, to induce either you or the LJ to stab on the turn.

The 5c on the turn doesn't change much, in the sense that it doesn't complete any draws, so he still has the best hand. Someone might have A5, or a flush draw, a straight draw, Kx, 55, etc, and if so, they are likely to lead out, so from his perspective, it's a good card, especially when you do indeed bet.

When you bet, he again has a choice - raise, likely folding out the LJ, or just call, to keep the LJ in, and continue disguising his hand.

If there was already a flush draw on the flop, and the turn added a second flush draw, or another straight draw, he might be more inclined to raise, but many good players are willing to flat call and risk the draws getting there, in order to disguise the strength of their hand and keep opponents' ranges wider.

This board shouldn't worry him that much. The possible straight draws are gutters, not open-ended. The flush draws only have 7 outs (because two will make V a boat). Since he'll act last on the river, he can make sure a bet goes in if it gets checked to him.

The key to slow-playing a strong but vulnerable hand is the ability to hand read and make big folds on bad run-outs. I hate slow-playing big hands because I suck at folding on scary run-outs. I simply don't play enough to shake it off and not go on tilt when it happens. I tend to get angry at myself.

It's not the only way he could have played it. I don't know if it's the best way. I tend to be more aggro on earlier streets, so I probably would have c-bet flop and barreled turn. If I checked flop, I might have raised turn, not necessarily out of fear, more out of greed. I'd want to build a bigger pot, if someone bet into me after I slow-played a big hand.

If the 5c improved your hand in any way, by giving you 2P (A5) or a pair + flush draw (AcXc), you might call the raise. What hand is he repping when he 3B pre, then checked back the flop, and now raises? 55?

The way this was played, at 1/2, I might think you had enough QJ in your range to take a smaller sizing on the river, with a plan to fold to a big check-raise. But his hand is so disguised, you might check-raise with AK or AT, thinking you had the best hand, or Qx / Jx, knowing you block the nut straight.

Again, this is part of why I don't like slow-playing vulnerable hands. If he c-bet flop and barreled turn, or checked-back flop and raised turn, your range would be better defined on the river, such that you would probably have more two-pair and less QJ, creating more confidence to make a bigger river bet.

Had he played it the way I would have, he probably would have taken down a smaller pot on flop or turn, or won a bigger pot on the river.

im a check call kinda guy

I think it was played fine.

I would block river, he is quite capped and we block the draws that snap fold or have to bluff.

Thanks! I have not checked out this forum for a long long time, and revealed the villain's hand in the post, which I shouldn't have.

You replied as if you somehow missed that information, and it makes me feel less bad.

I saw it . Sure there are traps, there always can be, but in general he caps his range by checking back.

In his spot I would really want to bet middle set when an ace is out there.

I found your detailed analysis indeed helpful.

Yeah my question earlier was asking how we should play KK if we were in our opponent's shoes. As a recreational player who plays once a week, thinking about what I would do in my opponent's shoes helps me to make better use of my limited experience.

If I were him, on the turn, I would raise to £80-£100.

If I just called the turn as played, I would bet 50%-70% pot at the river, because I think the earlier position player' hand would be very capped and may fold to a bigger bet.

After the hand I had a brief chat with the villain, and he told me he put me in AQ, and I was very surprised that he thinks pp with AQ can call a pot size bet. Given that he is a for-profit player for years, he certainly knows what he is doing. Therefore, perhaps I was wrong - most people with AQ at £1/£2 would call that (not that they should call, but they would call).

Although 9T makes two pairs, its strength is not much different from AQ as they could both beat Ax, QQ, JJ, and lost to AK, AT, A9 and even KT, not to mention sets and straight. During the hand, one key reason I decided to make the call was that the bet size was obviously what I could not afford with my hand strength, so it looks like he wanted me to fold. On reflection there are two ways to explain this:
1. My assumption was wrong. Pot size is actually the correct price to charge AQ and any two pairs.
2. We should bet pot size against weaker/ more stationary players, and bet smaller towards the better players (all those players in the comment who would fold to up to 50% pot size).

Any thoughts are welcome.

As Omahadonk said, we should want to bet middle-set on the flop. Like I said, his check-back on the flop was sneaky, and not how I would have played it.

The reason sets are so profitable is that they're so hidden. Flopping middle or bottom set as the PFR on an A-high board in a multi-way pot is a dream scenario. We don't block any top pair hands that can call, and might raise.

It would make more sense to check-back flop if he had AK, because he's blocking Ax and Kx hands, and because everyone puts the PFR on AK whenever they aren't blocking AK - like, if you had AQ, he has less AK in his range.

He probably lost value playing it the way he did. I question how good a pro he is, based on this hand, and also trying to put you on a specific holding, rather than thinking about all the hands in your range.

Why AQ? Why not a missed flush draw with some AXcc, or AT, KT, K9, T9cc etc? You could have all those hands and more in your range here. You could have AJs, KQs, KJs, or 55.

River bet sizing is more complicated than bet sizing on earlier streets, where the bet sizes tend to be more standardized. Let's say the river was just a low brick. He might bet smaller, to get value from a wider range of weaker hands you might have, and possibly induce you to bluff-raise. He might bet smaller if he bet flop and turn, or if the flush draw came in.

From his perspective (ignoring that he put you on AQ exactly), the T on the river connects with the other cards in such a way that you could have improved to 2P with AT, KT, and T9 (though you shouldn't have T9 very often here).

If you were going to bluff with a busted draw, or if you got there with QJ, you would have just barreled from up front. You might even barrel if you improved to 2P with AT or KT. Since you didn't, he figures you either have air that won't call a bet of any size, or top pair, or possibly 2P. His pot-sized bet is targeting the hands in your range that can call.

Your preflop raising size is too small. With a limper you wanna go at least 15, maybe more. Im fine to call pre i suppose, but my understanding is british casinos are high rake, so probably a fold. EASY check OTT. Nothing folds there from 3 betting range. Also, peop,e love to check their big sets in 3 bet pots to a point i can basically guarantee you he has KK AA after the tank check, and id even be so confident in this read i might just check fold a 9 otr.

I agree to check the turn, he probably bets and you call with pair + flush draw

T on river is tough, I think given 3bet and reg fold is correct yes, AK being so strong is the big one. I don't think he calls your turn bet with QQ or JJ, they're both double overpaired.

You made a good point that if I led the bet on the turn, which was likely to filter out QQ/ JJ, on the river there would much much fewer bluffs.

All fair points. Noted with thanks.

With the preflop opening size, in the casino this was played at, rake was charged at 5% up to £11. The majority of pros there open to 3bb which is £6 if no limpers, or £6 + dead money.

I prefer to open to £8 + dead money, or £15 (straddle pot) + dead money. There are three exclusions to my equation: 1. table atmosphere is wild. 2. amount of limpers is three or more than three. 3. hero is at the blinds.

A solver would probably say call the 3!, but I would fold as live ranges at these stakes are strong. I agree with the other poster that you don't want to play suited connectors multiway, but would like to play suited aces or pps multiway. I would plan to check/call the river, but would fold to the full pot sizing.

Villain's play is awful checking the flop 3-way and flat calling the turn. People should have aces and there could be draws on the high board. Not a good situation to slow play.

His flop check was a bad play with his hand, but it also doesn't make sense with his range. He 3! and the flop comes AK9,r. He should often have AA/KK/AK. If not, he should cbet representing them. Maybe he could have QQ/JJ/Axs with marginal showdown value, but he might still bet those and hope everyone goes away.

Given that, hero's turn bet doesn't really make sense, as you don't want to get raised and don't want to build the pot. It is unlikely the 3-bettor is folding the turn.

Thinking about preflop, suited gappers generally play better HU, but you may be getting better odds to make a big hand against a 3-bettor's possible overpair or TPTK playing it 3-way. I think it is close to the 3-bet, but I would fold. A solver isn't going to give you an answer 3-way and against a strong low stakes live 3-bet range.

I may be biased seeing results, but I would be careful against a 3-bettor on an AK flop. That is something hero should have been more aware of.

**** the 1/2 “pros”. Like either they arent pros or they suck if they play these stakes.

The goal with your raise sizing is to get as many heads up pots as possible. HU is where the fish play the absolute worst, because playing fit or fold and rarely bluffing (which is the typical fish playstyle) is a far more viable strategy multiway. If youre getting HU for 8, fine, but i really doubt it. I personally tweak my sizing based on everything down to the specific villians who limped and are in the blinds to try and get HU, but i honestly dont know that much of anything has ever had me go below 10 at 1/2, but ive never played outside the US.