V1 is a legend. He sits deep, plays every hand, calls raises oop relentlessly, barrels (often repping nothing) any time you exude weakness, calls light, pays for all the cocktails as long as you aren't a nit, etc. He is a true recreational player. While he has been aggro and bluffy with his barrels, he has yet to raise as a bluff (to anyone's knowledge) in the 4 or so hours the game has been going. He has 10k in front of him.

V2 is an ABC passive grinder, sitting with 4k.

Hero (not me) is slagging it up. He has been battling with V1 a lot and covers.

---

Pre (30)- V1 limps utg, fold, fold, V2 limps, hero raises to 150 with 99, folds around, V1 and V2 call.

Flop (480)- 876. Checked to hero who does what?


(this thread is an argument settler fwiw, thx)

what is this thread

haha, it's the result of a conversation/argument about optimal deep-stacked play with 99 on 876 two-tone, in position as pfr vs a super aggro rec player who has seemingly has no attachment to his money (500 bbs) and an abc grinder (200 bbs).

I imagine some whom have been bit hard by deep-stacked variance will at least acknowledge that there is a discussion to be had here (maybe not though).

Let's see:

--pair
--straight draw
--flush draw on board
--will get called by less
--will only get raised if soundly beaten

Yessir, that's a bet.

...seems like a pretty std check back to me

Check.

Really easy bet. Turn can bring a lot of weird spots, and having not bet the flop, it will be quite hard for us to play on the turn. We wanna at least isolate against one opponent if not take it down, with a hand that has so much equity and is very likely to be best at the moment.

This thread reminds me of this one:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/11...-poker-966849/

Which is, indeed, the easiest check back on the face of the planet. However, in this case, we are up against a range that consists mainly of overpairs and sets because of the fact that we are dealing with a 3-bet pot.

This is a different case, where villain's range is composed mainly of flush draws, pair + draws, and overcards. If we are raised on the flop, we can safely either fold or peel depending upon the raise size.

If we check back and see a diamond, an A, a K, a Q, a J, we likely lose the best hand if we indeed had it on the flop. Also, both villains are not going to bluff raise us off this hand according to the description--if either had a history of c/ring draws as semibluffs on a regular basis, I would check back.

Please expand on the bold.

We have 10 outs against a set and 13 against 2 pair. On the other hand, we are ****ed if someone flopped a straight. How likely is it that we get c/r'd by a big draw? How often do we get c/r'd for value by a hand we are crushing (98, 97, T8, A8, etc)? How often do we get c/r'd by air given how scary this flop should be to a pfr? How often does V1 (or V2 I guess) empty the clip in all these scenarios? What's our 3-street plan against a c/r 500 bbs deep? Is giving a free card compensated enough by the times we are in flip scenarios and eliminate 1 street/cut variance in half? Is it compensated enough by the times we got cold-decked and we keep the pot at a fraction of the size it would be if we bet/went with our hand? Is it compensated enough by the times V1 (again, maybe V2) decides to barrel off with a hand that would have been folded to a flop bet? What's V2's role in this equation?

The answers to all these questions are the crux of the debate imo.

I consider scenarios when we have under 30% equity to be "soundly beaten", which is the equivalence of flopping a set/a straight, but you are right about the 2 pair scenario, which we are flipping.

I do not think we are getting raised by a big draw/marginal hand from two villains who are passive with their raises. If they raise, we are flipping/behind, and if we hit one of our outs, we are unlikely to get paid with a 4-liner straight out there. Thus, I would be inclined to fold to a c/r from either one of these villains.

As for checking behind and seeing a villain barrel off, there are plenty of hands we are currently ahead of that will flat call a flop cbet--betting this flop is not turning 99 into a bluff. And given the description of the villains, they are unlikely to c/r us with worse. If anything, if we are flatted here and the turn and river brick, we can gain more thin value from our hand--any hand that is ahead of us is going to raise this flop for value unless they are extremely terrible.

I think you bet out. i may not be thinking about this the right way, but it seems to me there is plenty of value to be had from V1 given his description. If he raises, you can reevaluate and if diamonds come on the turn or river, you can also reevaluate.

As for V2, unless he raises the flop, i'd probably think the same given his description. What hand would he just call that flop with? If you think 9 10 (or 4 5) is in his flop calling range then you can always check back the turn and see what the river brings. If V2 raises the flop then at best i see you flipping and at worst crushed.

Against unknowns, i would probably just check the flop and let the hand go as i see us flipping against most hands, getting crushed by some and only beating hands that would not get it in with us.

I think you have to bet here pretty much always for a few reasons.

1) You are letting them play perfectly when they have hands that would fold to a flop bet but have a few outs. You are charging them nothing to hit a free card, which most of the time will cost you the pot and often future value bets. Against 2 opponents there are way to many cards they can hit that you need to charge them.

2)You need to get value from the hands that have pairs, but no draw and may think they are ahead.( A6, A7,A8 etc)

3) You need to get value from their draws. They are not always going to check raise draws. You need to charge them on the flop. On the turn if they are a bad player you will either take down the pot or they possibly will call for a draw again with incorrect odds. I think you are underestimating how cally most live players are, even with huge draws.

4) If you check the flop there are way too many bad cards on the turn where you will have no idea where you are at and may force you to call value bets incorrectly.

5) If villian checkraises the flop and leads the turn your hand is strong enough to peel most turns. You will look pretty strong to him and villian may shutdown on river causing you to win a bigger pot than if you pot controlled. Also, the rivers that hit you are great bluff opportunities for him, so you may win a massive pot if you hit a straight.

6) If villian is really out of control enough where he will always triple barrel, then you can reassess the situation and maybe make a river call if you think it is warranted.

7)The times villian actually has something and you hit a straight on the river he is very likely to pay you off since you could easily have other draws. This added equity is pretty big and should lean you towards not being afraid to play a bigger pot.

Pretty much in conclusion I think checking costs yourself a ton of value most times in order to sometimes prevent yourself from being in a bad spot.

Yeah these spots are always weird. HU against V1 is 110% bet, I think I still bet with V2 in the hand but hes making the whole thing way less sexy.

Bet 300. Fold if the abc grinder raises and call if the legend raises. Betting the flop gives you max options on the turn since all your range is in play.

bet

would hero have bet had he missed, as a lag?
he hit the flop pretty hard.
Vs prolly expect him to bet, so will call w/ much worse?

I think it's a pretty clear bet. Checking has more merits heads up. While you have a straight draw to go along with your overpair, against two other players, there are too many potential overcards, so you don't want to give a free card here. I'd like a check better against one opponent, but the fact that v2 is an abc nit, sort of negates the fact that there are two opponents, and makes it appear more like heads up -- making checking a reasonable alternative. Basically v1 would have to be pretty damn crazy for me to like checking more than betting here, though I think with the description given, checking is comparable to betting imo. (i'm not in a particularly articulate mood, blah. took me all those words to say checking = betting)

Too funny. I voted first before reading the thread. The results are funny. 1 person said to check. Nit.

I think this is a clear bet.

What hands are these two guys limping with? V1 can easily have over cards, V2 probably has a small pocket pair, etc.

When we have 99, it makes a lot of hands that hit this flop hard less likely. 98 is less likely, as is 910, and 97.

If checked back, what's the chance V1 bets the turn?

with a laggy image, the hero can certainly get called by worse. pair+draw or just draw will certainly call. not only do we likely have the best hand right now, we have outs. we also have blockers to the nuts and a blocker (ha!) to a flush draw.

with such deep stacks, if V1 decides to get frisky and c/r, we can peel and evaluate / peel and bink.

it would really be a disaster to give the villians a free pull at an overcard and lose initiative in the pot when the turn comes Qs and V1/V2 leads.

lmao yes cow is a huge nit.

I haven't read any comments prior to this one but the answer I think is bet. V1 is a rec player likely to call with worse draws and as described only barrels against weakness which is clearly not shown here and V2 as described isn't someone you have to worry about. Bet

i dont hate checking at all.

are you high

this thread is pretty absurd. checking is totally fine and i can certainly see reasons for betting as well. flop doesn't seem like a particularly interesting street to me.