Global Poker, PLO $0.25-$0.50, 6-player max

Effective stacks: 160 bb

Hero is HJ with K K T 9

Preflop: (1.5 bb, 5 players)
Hero raise to 3.5xbb, fold, SB call, fold

Flop: (8 bb, 2 players) 4 4 8
SB check, Hero check

Turn: (8 bb, players) 4 4 8 9
SB bet 3 bb, Hero raise to 13 bb



My thought process:

Flop > I have way less 4s in my range than the SB, and the SB check doesn't narrow their range. I likely have the best hand, but I check to avoid getting bluff/semibluffed check-raised off my better hand. In my mind checking also makes it harder for the SB to narrow my range, making it easier for me to play later streets.

Turn > The SB range is really wide here, and the small bet smelled like it wasn't likely to be a 4. Because I checked on flop, the SB could put me on 4 overcards and just want to fold me out. Calling didn't seem right either, as that would set up a tough river spot the SB could value bet a 4 (I haven't discounted that this is in their range) or a made straight or flush, or if they miss their draws bluff me off my better hand.

Raising felt right: If the SB has a weaker hand, I'm charging them to hit their outs, and if they 3-bet me I give them credit for the 4 and fold.

Raising felt like I was simplifying the hand for myself. When I take an action that simplifies future decisions, it feels like it's more likely to be the correct play, though I know it isn't a 1-to-1 correlation.

I can think of a lot more reasons to bet flop than to check it back.

A small pair on the board is very, very good for overpairs like ours. We're ahead by kind of a lot very often, but not by so much that we can be cute about it: we unblock Axxx, which we don't want to hit an A for free.

We block high spades somewhat, increasing our chances of winning without showdown (rarely a bad outcome).

We also have non-nut but helpful backdoor draws in our T98 and high three-flush.

It's possible but not especially likely that an opponent can find an 8xxx bluff here. And some number of their raises (possibly all of them, in these games) will be trips or better. So we don't super need to worry about getting pushed off of our equity.

As played, I like the turn raise. The 9 blocker helps justify it, but I think in a lot of ways we're just making up for missing our flop bet tbh.

1. At what point do you check because the likelihood of opponent having trips goes up? 558/668/778?
2. If the opponent has been aggressive and getting people to fold with bets and raises, does that change your flop calculus?

I agree with flop cbet, but turn raise is fine.

Villain bet sizing on turn is small, so no harm for going for value/protection immediately with what is likely the best hand. Shutting down on most rivers if called.

Calling isn't a bad option as villain can value bet worse hands and bluff on river, but i find the best adjustment to villain using small bet sizes and probes is to raise more liberally.

1. I'm sure that there's a more nuanced answer to this, but in all practicality the overriding consideration is that trips are inherently, combinatorically unlikely. And once the board pair gets high enough, the preflop raiser (whose range favors higher cards) is the one with more trips.

2. If an opponent is overaggressive with XRs, that means their XR range is too weak and KK will have more equity than normal here. Off the top of my head, it's hard to say what "tipping points" that introduces.

I like to check back against sb a lot, but I don't understand how you can want to check back vs their check range, but want to raise vs their turn bet.

I'm sure the solver will raise some frequency, and there is some merit, but I recommend not playing hands for the sake of making it easier to play. With a Ks, I think we play better to call here. We can raise worse hands as bluffs and hands who plays rivers worse as a flat for a protection raise. We can call and call most rivers with our hand.