NL1/2 8max
Villain was involved in quite some action before so might be on a slightly looser / more agressive side but not really a long history

* SEAT DRAW *
BB: Villain stack 200
UTG2: Hero with K J stack 200

* PREFLOP *
Villain: post BB 2
UTG1: call 2
Hero: raise 8
MP, LJ, HJ: fold
CO, BU, Villain: call 8
UTG1: fold

* FLOP * K J 6 pot 35
Villain: check
Hero: bet 32
CO, BU: fold
Villain: call 32

I assume villain's calling range is pretty strong consisting of top-pair or better plus straight draw (QT) and many Ace-high flushdraws. This is because I bet into four opponents and because the board nicely hits my range

* TURN * K J 6 A pot 99
Villain: check
Hero: ???

I don't like this turn. It completes the straight draw. Some previous pair might now be better two-pairs. Also notice most of the flopped flush-draws (Ace-high) are now made hands with like 16-17 outs or so against my two-pair. So his calling range seems might even be ahead of my hand

Seems MUBsy. Sure, V can have QT, and we're probably losing if that happens. We're 100 bb deep, with what was top 2. V shouldn't have anything other than 66 and QT that beat us. Maybe AJ.

Lots of heart draws that are calling your near pot flop bet too. Not interested in letting them draw for free. Still betting. We've 160 back. Pots about 100. We need to make it a mistake for how many outs here on V's hypothetical draw? Tempted to shove. Most non-committing bets look too small.

Personally, at 1-2 live, and a limper, a raise to 8 isn't enough for me. Probably making it 12-15. 32 into 35 is probably a little high too, but w/e.

I think it's a bet/fold OTT. Even if he plays the very top of his range like this (AA,KK,JJ, 66, AK,AJ,QT) thats only 46 combos by my math and 20 combos of Axhh Kxhh, depending how loose/passive preflop he truly is he can have tons of suited trash and AQ maybe AT in his range also. He's more likely to take this line with the weaker parts of his range. I don't see him bluffing over a 2/3 turn bet often or ever.

edit: nm, didn't see stack sizes. gross spot imo. shoving could be good if we know he never plays the top of his range like this. also failed to consider if he ever calls flop with offsuit Jx combos. Could lean it closer to a shove esp.

Taking my time looking at the hand I think we bet $40. That leaves us $120 behind into a pot of 179. The $40 bet makes the pot 139 and villain will get a little over 3:1 to call, but needs 5:1 to chase his outs with naked flushes or perhaps AQ/AT. If he shoves I think we have to call. We have 4 outs against his 12 combos of 2p/sets, and he doesnt always have every combo of QT. we're slightly ahead of his Axhh/Kxhh range which can be up to 16 combos, and he might shove Qxxhh or naked flushes or spaz with worse.

Raise bigger preflop since its live poker. I would go to 15. You will still get called by dominated hands.

We have an awkward stack size on the turn so I would just jam. You can get called by a lot of draws and paired aces still and its good to deny the equity to those draws if he folds.

What is he calling our jam with that we beat? There's also some Kx combos to consider he might call $40 with and sometimes river a worse 2pair that he calls stacks off when he puts on a missed FD. I don't think he ever leads the river on a FD complete board as a bluff after taking this line, so the river should be pretty easy fold or check behind on scare cards.

I would just jam, lots of draws picked up equity and might gambooool

I'm trying to understand why shoving is a good choice here. Assume he calls flop with KQ, KTs+, QTs, Ahxh, plus some worse FD while he mostly raises sets and two-pairs otf, which gives ~30 combos in his range on the turn. If we shove the turn with 160 into a ~100 pot I don't think he calls with middle pair Kx or plain FD. So he calls the shove with his straights and A- or K-high FDs making it ~18 combos he calls with. Against this range our hand has only ~44% equity (notice his many Ax FD have lots of outs). So the expected value of shoving is -160+12/30*260+18/30*0.44*260 =~ 12.6, which is marginally positive given the potsize ~100 and our equity of 58% against his whole range.

Isn't it more profitable to bet smallish as gbb187 suggests to extract value also from his Kx and plain FDs, for example? Even checking behind and calling or betting smallish on the river seems more profitable than shoving.

The issue is that most smaller bets on the turn are going to commit you if "more LAGy V" shoves over you with the draws we think comprise a lot of his range. Plus, while V will make a mistake to call a bet that has insufficient odds for this round, if V is chasing a draw, do their implied odds make it worthwhile?

Since we're going to call a shove anyway, but it's not like we're trying to induce one with 2P, why not shove ourselves, take down a 1/2 starting stack pot, and move on?

Raise bigger pre, to $10 or $12.

Pot-sized bet on the flop seems good.

I'd be betting the turn, probably 2/3 pot, around $65, to set up an easy jam on the river.

V is in the BB, with the widest range pre-flop. If he's drawing to something, it would most likely be the flush, so the only combo that improves to a better hand than ours on the turn is QThh, which could have check-raised flop, and probably wouldn't check to us twice.

V could have some AJ, and maybe A6, but that's just 15 combos, and I'd think some of his AJs would 3B pre. V could have a ton of KX and JX here, or just AXhh that is still hoping to improve.

Doubtful V is going to fold KX or AX to a 2/3 pot bet here. Also unlikely V check-raises with AXhh, AJ, or A6, at least not often enough for us to be worried about it happening.

If he has QThh, and checked it to us twice, good for him. Take my money.

Agree. It seems in live NL1/2 players are very loose.

It seems to depend a lot on what we assume about villain. Since I bet into three opponents otf villain might put me on a pretty strong range and therefore call with a narrower range as well. He might fold middle pair sometimes but I do see him continuing with QTs because they are drawing against my strong made hands. Also it make some sense to sometimes continue with AhQx which has many outs against my Kx.

Depending on what we assume about villain I see him folding Kx middle pair against 2/3 bet sometimes. From his view many of my A-high draws have improved to TP. Also his calling range has improved (QTs, many A-high draws). So me barreling again looks strong and he might decide to fold Kx.

So in retrospect I'd bet 45% on both turn and river so I extract value from his Kx more often on the turn and still get the money in against his Ax.

Flush draws, straight draws, Ax, especially AT and AQ, KQ, KT, all the combo draws, K6, and J6. Theres a plethora of worse hands that call a jam. People do liberally stack off w these hands and even worse at 1/2. I forgot QJ and JT as well. There is 0 reason to bet small when these droolers will call all in sizing and we can never fold anyway. Why give them better odds to draw against you when they are happy to gamble at worse odds.

KJ UTG+2 is profitable?

Just so we're clear - your preferred line here is betting almost full pot on the flop, then betting less than half-pot on the turn, and less than half-pot on the river?

So...you do you, but that doesn't seem like the optimal line here.

V flat called pre from the BB, so he has the widest range pre-flop, but we can mostly rule out hands like JJ, AK, and AJs. Then he called a pot-sized bet on the flop, from OOP. He has a hand. It isn't 2P or a set. It's 1P, a draw, or 1P + a draw. So his range on the flop is like KX, JX, QT, some XXhh, or maybe he gets sticky with A6.

The only hands in his range that improve to a hand better than ours on the turn are QT, AJo, and A6. We have everything else in his range crushed. Why would we want to bet 45% pot, giving him better than 3:1 odds to continue, when most of his range is just going to check-fold the river if he doesn't improve, or bet / check-raise huge when he sucks out?

It's not just the weirdness of betting pot on flop and less than half on the turn with a vulnerable hand, it's that it looks so weak that it will sometimes induce raises from worse hands that look like exactly what we were afraid of. The only reason to bet small there would be to keep his worse hands in or induce a raise when we have the nuts.

You are probably right but let me share my thoughts so I understand where my thought process is wrong.

If I bet small I feel my hand is too strong to fold if villain pushes because the pot odds would be like 2.6:1 and I still have a few outs against the nuts. So if V has a set or better the money will go in irrespective of my strategy.

So the question boils down to how I fare against the rest of villains range (excluding those that win again my hand anyways). As you point out that's mostly 1P (KX, a few JX), draw+pairs (AXhh), or a few pure FDs.

If my small bet induces a raise by some of these weaker holdings then that's actually good for me. So let's assume he calls or folds.

If he calls then betting bigger is indeed better against his draws.

But KX seems to make up the larger portion of his range. So the key question is if he calls or folds with these. If we assume he calls to a bigger bet then betting bigger indeed is better. I was assuming, however, he folds those to bigger bet because it's only middle pair on this specific turn. And if this assumption is correct then betting small seems better.

Finally, regarding the unconventional bet sizing betting big on flop and then small on turn: In most cases I would have continued betting big on turn if it was a blank. But this specific turn changed both our ranges so why not adjusting bet sizing?

more pre, flop good, b/f turn like 1/2 -2/3 pot.

i think all suited broadway is an open pre here and im a nit.