Villain had done nothing of note. Only other 3b pot was first hand, he folded to the cbet on 732o. What's your river decision and why?

[converted_hand][hand_history]Poker Stars, $1.40 Buy-in (15/30 blinds) No Limit Hold'em Tournament, 2 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite. View Hand #37684800

Hero (BB): 1,330 (44.3 bb)
SB: 1,670 (55.7 bb)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 9 9
SB raises to 60, Hero raises to 180, SB calls 120

Flop: (360) K 5 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, SB checks

Turn: (360) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, SB bets 90, Hero calls 90

River: (540) 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, SB bets 360, Hero ???

Id cbet small. As played, id bet turn small. As played call river.

The flop is actually a really important street in this hand so it's valuable to discuss further.

IMO 99 is always a check on this board. By checking we balance/defend for the times we mostly miss the K/don't have AA and have Ax Qx etc.

Obviously to not make our checks exploitable, we would also have to check value hands sometimes so our range isn't just capped at QQ> on later streets.

So, checking 99 protects our checks from being easy to barrel against and throwing in some value hands balances our range/strategy so that we CAN have strong hands on later streets, too.

KK and 53s would be the best candidates to check as value hands. Having 3 K's severely decreases the % villain can have a strong hand on this flop obviously, so a check to induce and really protects our check range. 53 is the second best hand to check as villain can just have Kx, bet, and stacks can go in when we're a favourite.

AA without the Ad would also make for a good c/r'ing hand, we don't block any Kx that we are a % favourite over and villain has way more combinations of Axdd in their range when we don't have the Ad. Cr'ing range would also need to be balanced by including some bluffs, best candidate would be A2/4dd. Tonnes of equity + fold equity + can get it in good against worse FD's.

My thoughts on the river are that this isn't the best hand to call with. We have blockers to both FD's and we would be lolowned if he has Kx and he's just betting any Kx he ends up with.

I could get behind a call on this river if neither 9 blocked the FD's but as both block, I don't like it as much. Villain now has way less barrel barrel FD combos in his range. Kind of sucky spot but probably a call with that hand...

Snap calling with Kx as villain has less Kx combos and thus less value hands in his range.

Haven't articulated many poker thoughts so let me know what you agree/disagree with

There is no point in balancing vs recreational players.

btw, you can cbet almost your entire range with a very small sizing if you really care about balance you range on this texture.

This

Don't like this thought process. Your entire game should stem from balance imo so you yourself aren't exploitable. I haven't completely figured it out yet but am on the way to doing so. But yeah, once a rec player's leaks/imbalance show you can adjust rather than playing 'exploitive' from the get go.

I don't see how betting our entire range small is good in anyway on this board texture. If we bet our entire range we're going to have so many worse hands than good hands on later streets and OOP in a growing pot. Not to mention that when we actually have Kx villain has less combos of Kx so we have more FE in these instances.

Seems building an overall game plan of hands that can check/bet will make more money. (catch bluffs with PP's/bet when actually have Kx+ for value)

I'm pretty certain that that's how the solution for this spot looks like. Thats true for a tone of textures in 3bet pots.

What's the reasoning then?

Strange to be in a strat forum and people give actions without any reasoning. Anyone else want to explain how they would play this hand?

on a board which is much stronger for for BB you can cbet small your entire range, also 99 would prefer cbet more often than hand like QQ for protection, but in the end its not that important if you cbet this or check imo, ev will be very close, but because there are bunch of overs to 9 this hand most likely cbets here a lot

I agree that it's definitely close and not much in it. Perhaps slightly better then to cbet 77-88/99 and check TT-QQ? TT-QQ play better on later streets for sure