1/3 NL. I have 240: I like playing short, but it would have been better to have a full stack in this hand. Main villain bought in a round earlier for 500. UTG + 3 raises to 15, I call in LJ with 99, CO calls, button 3!s to 45, original raiser calls, I call, button folds. About 100 to the flop of Q93,r. Checks to button, who bets 75, original raiser folds. Should I call or shove for a little less than half pot more?

Not sure it makes a huge difference, but in the case where he has AK or an underpair and might find a fold to a raise, I probably just call, and check turn. If he checks turn behind, I'm shoving river.

I'm ~ok with first preflop call. Second call is extremely meh with these stack sizes, imo.

Fairly dry board. We'll only have $95 left that we can easily shove into $250 even if he checks back the turn. Can still let AK bluff / catch up. No draw to be put on. We don't want to induce a rare hero fold. I don't see any reason to not just call (other than perhaps not wanting to see an A turn if he has KK)?

GcluelessNLnoobG

Since you've made over 4,000 posts, I have to assume that this HH is not a trolling attempt.

Having said that, cold-calling next in with 99 on a short stack is no bueno...and not shoving the next time around is criminal.

The final sentence is a great hook that brings possible trolling back into question.

3x45=100? no idea whats going on pre

the rake from hell? Also how does button 3 bet, and then fold?

Why would you consider flatting the flop? Isn't this a short stack's dream?

GG and I believe you have a better chance of getting his stack in if we flat. We're getting it in no matter the run out. The question is, what play has the best percentage chance of getting all his stack in too?

I think it's probably very close, but I think flatting and giving him a chance to hang himself is slightly better; it's defo legit to argue that shoving flop has a greater chance of us playing for stacks, and you're free to make that case.

Oh, I made a mistake, the pot was like 145 on the flop. 295 after calling his bet with 120 left.

I would just jam, if you call his flop bet does he really think you're folding otr? It also depends on your image and whether or not you've been jamming in these spot with your stack and if it's gone to SD. You can play cat and mouse and call but if he only had AK he might not call the extra 120 or whatever you have left where he would of felt much more commited otf with 2 cards to come.

I shoved and he snap folded. He must not have had 99+/AQ+. Maybe he had a bdfd with 2 suited cards.

You also said the guy who 3bet and then led out on the flop folded pre.

Sorry, I got the positions mixed up. There was a call after me, then a 3! and the caller folded.

He most likely wasn't betting again if you called then.

If V is ever capable of 3-betting JT or KJ I think we should jam. Otherwise I don't think its bad to be greedy at this stack depth.

I don't often play short stacked. Ordinarily, I'd 3B 99 pre, but maybe not if we're only starting $240 eff? Might also depend on our reads on UTG3 and those left to act.

Think I might donk flop. But checking to check-raise seems okay. Gonna hate it if the flop checks through, though.

Once the BTN c-bets and UTG3 folds, seems like a reasonable shove. We could be pushing with Qx, or JT. Really kind of depends on our table image and our read on BTN. Is he capable of getting away from AQ+ here?

Not really sure why we flat pre with 99 if we're not hoping to flop a set and get stacks into the middle. Seems like we got what we wanted, and now just need to accept the gift by jamming.

didnt read all the replies yet and im pretty sure consensus of agreement has been made on the strat here but I wanted to contribute something I'm hypothesizing I guess or hopefully coming to understand better about how a solver "thinks" so to speak - or more precisely, the underpinnings behind the formulation of its strategy.

I havent formally worked out the way to phrase it so forgive the looseness of concept here:

GTO solver strategy bucket its lines/strategies for value hand ranges n a manner that seems from a very macro view that it is targeting different portions of villains range.

I'm gonna give some oversimplified hypothtical to elucidate: holding an overpair like 99 on a 6 high board with some draws available, the solver will choose to be more aggressive here vs holding something like KK or AA. If we simplify the frequency of action into a more binary system wherein we're not further mixing our frequency of action with a given hand eg. solver will say 77% check, 29% bet, 1% raise say, for explanation purposes we'll assume the majority strat is the only option.

So why is it doing this? is it's suggestion solely due to blockers/unblockers or is there something else here too? I need to spend more time with a solver but I think an avenue of understanding is simply realizing which hands in our value range benefit more or less from fold equity.

When we hold AA on a 6 high board, villain now has a TON MORE value combos themselves we are ahead of and so is more likely to value cut themselves post flop whereas something like 99 is much more vulnerable to various runouts and so in a way, is a better hand to utilize aggression as a way to eradicate opponents equity within their range where they may hold a hand that can draw out on 99 with 2 cards to come where AA is far less affected by those situations.

ez example: 99 on a 632 board, villain holding AT with BDFD now has 6 more outs. Doing the same thing across their entire range that arrives at this flop we can see why our middling value hands while still holding intrinsic value are susceptible to losing equity on runouts and so a more aggressive line is preferred.

Perhaps this is rather fundamental to everyone else's understanding but something about looking at it this way feels liek it helps me parse and understand the rather vast complex strategies GTO employs, helping me "simplify" its numerous actions in a way.

Granted I am not a proponent of pure GTO at low limit live poker, however I DO think there are certainly some edge cases (maybe more than just edge) where a GTO strategy overlaps with a strategy that exploits our opponents the best. In addition,understanding the fundamental basis of a "pure" strategy allows us to make smarter deviations from GTO when faced with sub-optimal opponents.

bringing it back to this case - while there are other factors that I think influence the decision OP has on the flop for this specific situation (namely SPR), but as a way to distill and draw out some framework of linearity in your strategy elsewhere, i thought the above overlapped and applied to this specific thread as a building block for other cases such as: everything above is the same but stacks are 150 effective and SPR on the flop is larger.