V1 ($173) - Don't have a great read, but seems weak-passive.
Hero ($222)
V2 (Covers both) - Seems like a decent player, but don't have many hands with them.

6-handed. V1 Straddles UTG, folds to Hero in CO who opens to $15 with Ah2hAd5cTs, V2 calls on the BTN, V1 calls from straddle.

Flop ($48) - 6hJc3c

V1 checks, Hero bets $36, both call.

Turn ($156) - 6hJc3c6d

V1 checks, Hero ???

Considering you had only slightly over pot behind, betting seems standard. I don't think checking is bad either, especially if you think V2 always has a huge hand if he bets last to act. I think mostly people call too wide once you bet, so that's a big argument in favor of betting. Sizing seems a bit random though? You are never folding after you bet this size, so maybe it makes more sense to either bet much smaller or to pot it.

It's a decent flop for your hand (nut-low draw with BDNFD + an overpair) but this particular board and multi-way action makes it super important you hit on the turn. If you don't make your nut-low you have one-pair and could be drawing to a chop. A board-pair is the worst possible turn for you (especially 3 or 6 since guys calling raises pre-flop tend to have A + low cards), so not sure why you felt committed to stacking off....stack size perhaps?

This is the problem with playing Big O with a short stack; at $1-2 PLO ($5 bring-in) I'd like to have at least $400 in front of me pre-flop so I can get max value from big hands + have Fold Equity by being able to make large enough bets + get away from mediocre hands. Since you started with only $200 you are going to find yourself consistently in spots where your SPR is low and you feel committed to shoving (seems like you were going to ship the turn no matter what card came).

If you started the hand with $400 the turn would be a pretty clear check-fold IMO.

I lean check without the ace of clubs but 6 is an okish turn card overall, much better than a 2nd 3 or j.

some good points being made. agree with amok, either bet small or pot it. i think checking is a good option if it fits with your overall turn play strategy.

agree on the stack size/spr thing as well. playing with less than 100bb ends up putting you into wacky situations where you are forced to get it in, often as a dog.

also think the 6 is better than a 3 or a J. instinctively seeing this turn i was thinking "shrug bet"

This is only one side of the coin. If you play with a short stack and have a good hand pre, you can commit on most flops, so you have to get less away from mediocre hands. If you are a lot better at identifying hand strengths post-flop than your opponents, yes it makes a lot of sense to buy in deep. However, if they play decent post but poorly pre (IMO this is the way most live games play), having a short stack is a huge advantage.

The question for me is "why play with a short stack?"

There really isn't any advantage to playing short - you have no fold equity (so when you do ship you price in weak draws/blocking hands that you want to fold out), you limit your options since you can't bet-fold post-flop (since you are committed with such a small SPR), and when you do get a monster you don't get much value out of it.

All playing short does is force you to commit in marginal spots. From my experience when you feel "forced to commit" because you are playing short you are just justifying gambles that could've been avoided by being properly stacked to begin with.

I couldn't disagree more, but have nothing to add.

I agree that I should have just gone full pot on turn.

I'm definitely checking a 3 or J on the turn, which I agree aren't great turns for me. I think a 6 is significantly better for me than a 3 or J. Also, clubs that don't bring in a low (along with Ac and 2c) are much worse for my hand than a 6. Probably worse than any board pair as well but it's debatable and not really worth looking into in-depth.

Agreed.


Also agree with amok on this brief short-stacked debate.

agree. biggest trap short stackers can fall into is they commit with their hands when they aren't all that strong to begin with, solely because of their short stack.

I play with a short stack when I have to (i.e. I'm on my last buy-in), not by choice. Seems to be a long-term losing strategy for the multiple reasons I listed that haven't been countered.

But hey, if it works for you, it works for you, more power to you.

bet the turn

this is one of those spots where no matter what you do you'll be wrong

in this buy-in size debate, no one has pointed out we can't control our opponents being short or deep stacked? having 400 bigs wouldn't have changed the effective stacks.

we can control how much we buy in for which is the overriding factor lol

Correct - you can’t play deep-stack strategies when everyone else is short. Well, you can try but you’ll just be bet/folding your way down to a short stack.

This X 1000.