6-max 100 PLO. 100bb eff.

Folds to readless CO, who pots. We re-pot on button with
As Ac Qd Qs. CO calls. Rest fold. Head to flop HU.

Flop -
Ah 7h 8d.
Top set and no draws of any sort.

CO checks.
Pot is $25ish
$88 left in each stack.

Typically betting on the much larger side here, either close to pot or full pot. Lately have been wondering if anything other than actual full pot is suboptimal.

Thoughts? Thanks.

With us not blocking any relevant draws, I'd think that full pot makes sense.

If not full pot, then I'd probably bet $12 to induce a raise that we can jam on. I think betting near full pot but not actually pot is the worst option.

His continuing range has good equity vs. Your hand so it's one of those things. Getting the money in hes gonna have strong combo draws most of the time, especially since he has more hands that hit the 78hh aspect of the board in his open/calling range than you do in your 3bet range. Your bet isnt really for value it's for protection so full pot seems the only way to go

Trouble is on any scary turn he can jam his whole range and you dont have the odds to boatmine the river

One of those PLO situations where you have strong equity but almost no playability on future streets hard for villain to make mistakes

Like literally he can call with any 4 and jam any 4, 5, 6, 9, T, J, or h and you have to fold. 27 cards

Despite how insane it might sound I could see a strong argument for checking back

1. Disguises our hand
2. Induces some bluffs on the turn
3. Can balance with rest of our 3b range
4. Halves equity vs. Strong villain holdings on brick turns

If he calls the flop with any four and jams all of those turns with his entire range, as you describe, you'll have a call on all of them, and a very easy one at that. This is easily verifiable by doing an equity sim.

Don't interpret this as me saying a pot-sized bet is bad, obviously. I'll let someone else pillory the checking back idea. :P

I didnt say he did that. I was just illustrating how much more playable his range is vs. Ours on future streets.

Also I didnt say checking back was a good play just something to consider from our available options

Brings up some interesting questions about what we do on this flop with medium rundowns and double suited/well connected big pairs etc ie: the large part of our range that doesnt contain top set. We probably dont pot it...

That's the crux of OP's original question. It's not really what do with do with this hand specifically, but how we want to play our entire range in this spot vs villain's range.

the fact that the board is dynamic simply underscores how dangerous it would be to give a free card

yeah pretty much this


appreciate the responses, all

If you ever check this back, give up the game and move on

I don't like potting when we're super strong with low SPR. We should be betting the absolute minimum that we can which both creates the illusion of fold equity but still prices out weak draws. That's about 60%ish pot on this board, which is what I'll use for my entire betting range. I'll also be be checking back hands like naked kings, and weak or mediocre aces, and to balance that you have to occasionally checkback some top sets even on wet boards. But in this spot, our aces aren't good enough to do that without any kind of draw for ourselves to go along with.

I think betting 14 or 15 is optimal here. I never cbet pot anyway, and especially not if i hit top set.

Why would you check back naked KK?

Just a spot where worse always folds and better always calls. I’ll still bet some kings but usually only with follow up semi bluff potential.

Is that because on this particular structure there are not a lot of high equity worse hands that fold because they also hit this board in other ways?

For example on a A92 board there are a ton of mid pair type hands with 40%+ vs. KK that likely fold whereas on an A87 board the one pair hands also have a lot of straight draws/flush draws with them?

I’ll check back some kings on any structure. On wet boards there’s more incentive to bet and protect, but also a greater chance you get blown off with a c/r semibluff.

this is a 66%-100% full pot bet.

You are only getting called by draws - might as well charge them.

Your range is heavily weighted towards AA

this. I like this kind of bet here for sure around 60% of the pot seems optimal. In general , referring to OP question, we bet from 25% to fulll pot in these spots, what will determine the sizing is the flop board, how connected and fd's, how many players in the pot and all of our SPRs. This is actually very interesting spot that comes up a lot and its important to know how to play it as optimally as possible.

Call any 4 and jam any straight card and top set will fold with 0.8 spr cause

we obviously have that every time right?If the trouble is opponent jamming his entire range on bad turns for us,what is stopping him to do that when we

check back?

It's just a thought experiment. I'm not saying anything about tendencies or correct actions. I think I close to pot here most of the time because I'm not concerned about bet size balancing here. I pretty much bet and for the same amount with my whole range, since I have what appears to be exactly AA.