One EP limper and then I raise AJcc OTB. BB calls. He is a laggy old European guy. EP calls, 3 ways for 3 BB.

Flop Qs 9s 8d. Checked to me and I check back.

Turn 4d. Checked to me again and I bet. BB c/r, EP folds, I call.

River 2h. EP bets, I realize I likely played every street wrong and then call.

Pre looks good!

shrug on flop check back. seems ok to me. bet call also fine.

shrug on the turn bet. hu I can see betting. three ways seems more dicey. still, they did check to you twice, pot's small, and you have equity when called.

shrug on the river call. getting a price, hard to see what bluffs we beat play this way. some hands he plays this way are pears that may be subjectively bluffing. expecting many people you would term laggy to lead turn with spades.

I'd play same, think max value in long run FTR.

Flop, I'd bet too high % of time when checked to but that's my leak.

If I check the flop I would check the turn especially with your hand value decreasing in a three way pot. I’m not sure what you’re trying to represent on the turn.

Flop: With an overcard and a gutshot draw I'm ok with betting the flop 3 handed but I think checking is defensible too given that this board hits opponent ranges pretty damn hard and I would expect a laggy BB to have a pretty wide flop check-raise range. Frankly in this exact spot I am not sure what is best between checking and betting.

Turn: Once you check the flop and the turn is a blank and both opponents check to you, you MUST bet. You're just too likely to have the best hand after this action and even if you're called in a spot you still have outs. When the laggy BB check/raises I'm not folding. I know he knows I probably have Ace-high in this spot so I expect the BB's c/r range to be super wide in this spot. I could easily still have the best hand here and if not I still have outs.

River: On that blank card you gotta call. All draws missed. You'll have the best hand often enough.

Conclusion: This hand was well played.

I'd be tempted to bet the flop if I had a bdfd to go with my gutshot and over, but on this board, I think checking back is correct. On the turn, I do not think betting accomplishes much and I would just check back in this small pot. Then I'd probably fold a blank river if bet into absent a read where someone is likely to be bluffing.

After that action--both opponents checking on a blank after the PFR checked back the flop--the hero is just too likely to have the best hand to consider checking back again. The laggy BB would probably bet any pair and any draw on the turn. The EP guy is probably betting any pair also along with big draws. The hero has to bet here for protection/thin value + the majority of times the Hero runs into a better hand he will have outs, often as high as 10 outs given that Qx from our opponents needs to be severely discounted after that action.

Obviously the worst case scenario happened. The hero bet the turn and got check/raised but this isn't that big of a deal. The hero's hand is transparent after the flop check. The whole room knows he probably has Ace high. So before the hero even makes that correct turn bet he should be prepared to get check/raised more than usual especially by a laggy player and thus the hero must be prepared to make looser call downs in this spot. When the laggy player check/raises the turn his hand will be highly polarized. Either he has nothing and he's hoping the hero will fold his nothing or he has a monster that decided to get tricky. Overall I expect the Lag's range to be weak in this spot and the hero got a beautiful nothing card on the river to make a pretty easy profitable call with his bluff catcher.

Le's set aside that I don't subscribe to the view that "protection" is really a thing. I assume that by protection, you mean forcing other hands to forfeit their equity in the pot rather than getting to realize whatever equity they have for free. This pot is very small, especially for a three-way pot. There is just very little value in protection, and the cost of 1 BB in a 3 BB pot is way too high to pay to achieve a protection-type goal.

I also think you're overestimating how often we are ahead rather than up against marginal hands that will call down (esp. in light of your views on how people will view our hand) and are playing defensively.

I think the best case for getting thin value here is that this is a wet board and there are lots of hands that have draws that might call a bet, but even those hands have decent equity versus us. I just think it's a bit too greedy to try to go for value three ways on this terrible board with ace high. If we can win the pot at a cheap showdown, great. But I think when bets go in on this board, you're usually beat.

Edit: I should note that I do feel there is merit to betting against hands that have equity but will only call bets in the event that they catch and beat you. But the concept of "protection" is too amorphous and misused that I generally dislike it as a reason for betting, but it's not total BS.

I believe the bolded is correct. But I also think that if he has nothing and wants to bluff, he is likely to just bet the turn, not go for a check-raise. I don't think the chance that he has nothing that beats ace-high is high enough to make it worth calling two more big bets to get to showdown, with only 4 outs to beat the likely monster. And of course if he has JT, hero only has 3 outs to half the pot. Against most villains I play it the same through the turn bet and then make a crying fold to the check-raise.

This WAS a terrible board for Ace high on the flop. But after they both check again on the turn after you checked the flop this becomes a good board for your hand. We don't need to get bogged down with terminology here. Bottom line: After THAT action the hero will have the nuts way too often to consider checking the turn. If the BB and EP both have non-paired hands checking potentially allows a combined 12 outer to draw against us for free. Now way the hero should let that happen given how often he will have the best hand in that spot.

The lag is less likely to straight bluff bet the turn in that spot becuz he has to get through EP's hand and EP's hand is basically undefined at this point (EP limping in and then checking to the raiser doesn't really tell us much about his hand). So comparing the lag betting the turn vs check/raising here is really not valid. There's a completely different dynamic of the latter scenario vs the former. In the latter C/R scenario the lag KNOWS EP has nothing or at best a marginal hand that cant call a C/R given that EP checked again on the turn. In the former scenario the lag knows practically nothing about EP's hand and what he could possibly deduce is NOT good for the prospects of bluff betting the turn (I.E. the lag may correctly deduce that a Q98 board smacks EP's limping range).

I think against a lag or any thinking player folding that strong of a hand to a turn check/raise is a serious mistake. Poker is not about absolute values, it's about relative values. In this spot the hero has way too strong of a hand to fold and when a total blank hits the river he has a fist pump call.

Forgot to respond to this part. It's not just how often we are ahead--which will be a decent amount of time in this spot--but rather the combination of 1) being ahead + 2) having outs if called that makes the turn a must bet. Even those times hero is behind to some marginal pair it isn't as costly cuz he'll have outs. Also, as far as "marginal hands that will call down", I'm not advocating that the hero bluff the river. There's only 1 card that could hit the river that would entice me into turning my hand into a bluff and that's a King. Other than that I'm checking the river unimproved for obvious reasons and hoping to win.

Your thought process makes perfect sense.

Depends though. At the Gardens I would expect the villain to have something like a small pocket pair at showdown.