25PLO,
We OR JT82 and are called in 1 spot by an unknown.

Flop comes A-8-2 rain.

OOP &/or IP...
Do we cbet for value even tho our hand cant stand a raise?

Would it be fair to say that a cbet here overreps our hand?

IP, is this a hand we should be adding to out checkback range?

OOP, do we ever c/c here?

I like cbetting about 100% OOP vs most villains as you will get called an inordinate amount of the time by Axxx...the same goes for cbetting IP as a matter of fact. There is just no reason to be checking this back imo...

even vs A*** OOP
1) villain is going to have 3 overkickers and decent equity
2) we're gonna be forced to slowdown UI on a lot of turn or rivercards at which point villain can make us make a mistake.
3) If our hand holds we never get 3 streets of value anyway

wouldnt this be a good spot to play a little passively oop to pc and underrep our hand a bit?

like i said, it depends on the type of player. Vs. a decent player who you feel will put pressure on you on later streets, I think c/f is much better than c/c and a passive approach to the hand has almost no merit.

vs. weaker/passive players who likely arent betting a very wide range a flop check is certainly ok, but again it is probably better to c/f bottom 2 vs this type of player as they arent necessarily going to utilize position to take advantage of you, but rather you are simply behind their betting range on the flop. I check the flop a decent amount planning to c/f vs these types, and open pot a ton of turns if they check behind...

It's not like there is a ton of value in a bet regardless, but I think it is definitely the most +EV play to be made OOP. I think when you check the flop, you are basically just praying for a check behind, in which case I think a bet is better...

underrepping our hand is only viable w/ a hand that can stand to c/c a couple streets imo...c/c bottom 2 here is just asking to be put in tough spots and any hand that you are ahead of that is betting almost certainly has decent equity vs. you.

Also, I suppose a check behind is OK once in a while IP, but again I would only do this vs. aggressive types who are prone to auto stabbing turns when you check behind, otherwise a bet has much more value...

In summary, my thought process is essentially based on a rudimentary process of elimination:

1. c/c is likely -EV OOP as you will often face massive RIO and you will sometimes fold the best hand on later streets...

2. c/f definitely seems too weak vs. most opponents in a HU pot as you have the best hand here a large % of the time...

3. b/f is therefore the best play IMHO, and may even be the only +EV play to be made...

I am, however, very much open to hearing counter arguments to any of these points...

^
quality post man (havent seen many in this forum lately) thanks for taking the time.

The part of your point #1 "you will often face massive RIO and you will sometimes fold the best hand on later streets..." is really my main concern and my reason for posting. Its actually why Im more inclined to c/c rather than cbet oop w/ hands that are likely to be best, but are not strong enough to get all the $ in and are also unlikely to improve.

Part of my reason for thinking this way is because our opponent's betting range when we check should be a bit wider than his raising range when we cbet, and in some cases may even be wider than his peeling range. So we do pick up some ev there.

Also a c/c gives us the advantage of under representation. Our range isnt as well defined this way and can often allow us to credibly rep a wider range later in the hand if we feel its appropriate.

Cbetting oop (Id argue) narrows our range and allows villain to use position to basically take the hand (and pot size) wherever he wants to.

But all your points make sense and our disagreements may just be a matter of style or that the type of play in our games/stakes may be different. Or I could just be wrong.

Also the flop example I gave might be a bit too dry to support my position and in that exact spot I do think a b/f is better. On drawier flops tho I think my more passive approach might have more merit.