Shove.

This seems almost like a call and reevaluate the river decision to me I think you are a head of some of his range as he is pretty active and most likely will defend his straddle lite but it could also mean some rag tag two pr also.

Why not? Board is somewhat ragged vs. a villain we have no history with, we are pretty deep with 8x current pot behind, and clearly we don't know how to respond to a CR. I think small pot poker is a good choice here with position.

I agree with dumbdumb, keep the pot small since u got 1 pair
Check the turn, if he does infact have the draw and misses u might get a nice bluff out of him and if he is that active he isnt folding draw on turn anyway since you r so deep. if he has u beat or has a draw and hits you will save yourself money in both scenarios. if a heart comes and he shoves is the only way i see folding this hand

Because the object of poker is to maximize value and there's clearly an epic amount of value in betting. Who the **** cares if he raises, it only happens like 10% of the time, and we can probably stack off and feel great about it anyways. The other 90% of the time he's gonna call an 4/5 pot bet with like his whole range.

We have two queens in a live poker game, I mean its just an absurdly easy bet.

So if this were an online 5/10 game, would you advocate betting as well? Or is it just because it is live and u in general don't respect live players as much and are therefore more comfortable stacking off with an overpair? I am not trying to be an ass here...it just seems that I lose a ton of $$ in these spots and most of it (online granted) is because I do bet/call a raise.

I respect your play/posts a lot so thanks in advance for delving into this a bit deeper for me.

Well its just impossible to compare this spot to 5/10 online. But yes, I have very little respect for live players' games, and I would equate a game like this to about .25/.50 online at best.

He just almost never has us beat here. TT/T7 is the only hands we are legitimately behind, the rest of the time he has something ******ed like a flush draw that turned top pair or just some random two cards that he feels like raising with.

Also as I mentioned its not really that deep. The pot on the flop is 180 with 3900 behind. This is the rough equivalent of 140bb deep in a standard hu raised pot with no straddle.

Its unbelievably weak to check the turn though, the play is betting, whether you bet fold or bet call, its a bet for sure. Imagine the myriad hands he's never folding for any amount that we have 70+% equity against: nut flush draw, pair plus draw, JJ, maybe even 99-88/A7.

I realize there is a straddle but that does not mean that stacks should automatically go through some metamorphosis in which your "defaults/standards" now suddenly become applicable here because they meet a certain big-bet to stack criteria. There are way too many other variables that come into play to ignore their validity and impact on the given situation.

Also, 400bbs would be considered deep, even for live. But what does that even mean anyways, deep? If you are just using deep as a metaphor for the theoretical line that uses/doesn't use a "standard" or "default" then we have different definitions of what deep really is I think, at least in its full encompassing realm.

i define depth simply as stack to pot ratio for a given decision

edit: That said, I do realize that absolute $$$ figures matter to live people, but I think the amount of money affects him in both directions (i.e. the degen side "i gotta win this pot")

My point is that being deep is relative to the player and situation, and ones perception of being and playing deep may differ drastically from another. Because you can't know how deep is defined for each player you cannot approach the hand in such rote fashion. The main reason for this is because of the introduction of a variable that not everybody has agreed to formally (namely the straddle). And this alone (though there are other variables that keep the deepness of the situation cloudy) is enough to be forced to abandon your "140bb standard heads up raised pot with no straddle" (even though, uhh, there is one) mentality/approach.

Also, absolute money matters to online people as well. The players that it doesn't "matter" to are the good players and the over bankrolled players (who wouldn't you know, tend to be the good players).

As for it possibly "affecting him in both directions", well that's valid and is what poker consists of (the deciphering of this), but it seems silly to use that lone statement as justification to play a certain way....cause as you said, it goes both ways.

I agree with what you are saying, but my point was to simply to dispel the myth that this is a super deep hand. This hand should play nowhere nearly as nitty as a 400bb deep online hand, or even a 175bb deep one for that matter. The whole point of the straddle is that it creates action, and we're in the pot WITH a defending straddler who's been "active" (I hate that leading language when posting a hand by the way, didn't you say you just sat down at table? What he do that was "active"?), you just can't be giving him a ton of credit here imo.

EDIT: Oh and my main beef with this thread has been the comments saying to check the turn. That seems completely ridiculous to me. As far as what to do once you bet, yeah I agree thats legitimately tough.

BEET TURN!
Bet less, 300 is okay. This deep in live tables it will guarantee a call from all the draws.

Now I don't hate call, fold or raise so you can't go wrong!

Hmmm, well I won't argue the deep/not deep line. To me, 8x pot on turn seems pretty deep, but I guess it does depend on the person.

I guess what I am still stuck on is that since he is the straddler, he may be willing to defend with any two here so shouldn't we include all of the other random 2 pair hands in his range? I feel like from your comments you have eliminated some of them and that might be why you are so inclined to bet.

One other thing that I find interesting is that you say "As far as what to do once you bet, yeah I agree thats legitimately tough." So we are going to bet without a plan for what to do if he CR's? That seems odd to me when we can check turn and get to showdown more cheaply (albeit sacrificing potential value form the hands that we are crushing that he might call with). Also, are we really getting 2 more streets of value from hands that we beat? I am not so sure of this so that makes betting the turn less obvious IMO.

It is very true that we lose value from a FD on turn and we give him a free chance to catch. So, that is certainly a negative. I guess my bottom line is that since we don't know this villain at all, it may be better to play THIS HAND softer and look for a better spot to get involved with him for a big pot once we have some history. I guess you guys might consider that "weenie" play, but that seems to be my default with villain's that I have little history with.

Anyway, thanks to Renton and jloc for their wisdom. Maybe I will get to "trivially easy bet" some day in this spot...something to shoot for.

Yes, I believe that its such a bet that you could bet and flip a coin if he raises and its still more profitable than checking.

Also if he can have any two pair whatsoever, then I'm automatically getting this in, cause theres no telling what other ******ed **** is in his range if T5 is in it.

This seems to me to be by no means a snap fold - but the missing information needed to make the decision is his post flop playing tendencies. How passive is he? I would default to fold, but default is really not very good. If he is very aggressive after the flop, then you should probably reraise. If he is passive, you should probably fold. How he got so deep is important, but given that he has probably won a bunch of monies so far you should fold. As another poster mentioned, the fact that he straddled and is defending his straddle is critical, but it swings both way - all two pairs could be in play, for example.