This is FR table with 6 players, thoughts on all streets appreciated.

NL Holdem $0.50(BB)

Hero ($67.83)
BTN ($48.50)

Dealt to Hero Q A

fold, fold, Hero raises to $1.50, BTN raises to $4.31, fold, fold, Hero calls $2.81

FLOP ($9.37) Q J 2

Hero checks, BTN bets $7.03, Hero calls $7.03

TURN ($23.43) Q J 2 9

Hero checks, BTN checks

RIVER ($23.43) Q J 2 9 5

Hero bets $14, BTN raises to $37.16 (AI)

Villain is unknown, 3b me a few times before this but doesn't seem to be super crazy or anything. He's under full stack but definitely not a massive whale or anything.

probably fold, doubt hes creative enough to be bluffing here.

Personally I'd fold AQo to a button 3bet.

It's possible he's bluffing on the river but I doubt it. Fold river

if villain has 3-bet before several times, i might call this 3-bet. if not, i'd fold pre most of the time. river i would fold, a river raise is almost always the nuts.

4bet bluff or fold pre

Sorry I am trying to understand the implications of what you are saying here. You are simultaneously trying to say that it will not be profitable to flat AQ preflop here, likely because you think his range is too strong (we only lose to QQ+/AK) and then think that we can profitably 4-bet as a bluff?

I honestly thought pre was pretty standard, so I'm kind of surprised to see all the people saying it's bad. What are thoughts on my river bet sizing? I considered shoving, any merit to that? I also considered betting like $7-$8, would that be awful? Thanks.

pre is fine. i think it's close between c/f and b/f otr. probs go with b/f ~$12 coz he can have some hands like Jx or worse Qx that can't fold. definitely fold now tho - no-one at 50nl is this good/bad/creative to bluff here

I'm not a fan of preflop, either. Not because our hand is much weaker than the guy's range to 3b from the button, but because being OOP makes it so hard to either play when we miss or extract when we hit. It's a situation where you are destined to lose most of the time, and his position will usually allow him to lose the minimum when you are best.

I do often call with AQs, though, as we'll have an occasional semi-bluff check/raising opportunity to prop up our hand's post-flop playability.

I don't disagree that being oop is a negative thing, but this seems odd to me. Simultaneously he's going to be able to make us fold when we miss (hint: I'm not folding to one bet on hardly any flop) and also not give us money when we hit our pair? I would think when we flop a pair it will be the type of board he will be more inclined to barrel as well. Also it's pretty board-dependent but overbets are pretty cool in terms of preventing him from pot controlling and "losing the minimum" which is why I considered just shoving this river, but in general I think overbet as a bluff > overbet for value in just about every uFR spot.

That's not what i'm implying. There are four major advantages when it comes to playing a hand of poker: position, skill advantage, card advantage, and initiative. By flatting pre you're already giving up two of those (position and initiative). It's very difficult to overcome that and show a profit in this spot. If we were in position I'd have no problem calling, but OOP it just doesn't seem profitable. AQo has blockers to QQ+/AK so i'd rather just take it down pre.

fwiw you don't even have to make money with it, just lose less than 300 bb/100 or whatever

Ah true. But I still don't think calling is good

Initiative is not a real thing.

I sometimes flat pre in these situations. They're obviously difficult, but it shouldn't be avoided just because it's difficult. A lot of people play 3bet pots way too honestly. Anyway...

Why are you betting river? Just curious on your line of thinking.

If I was better, I'd probably fold to a bad player and call against a good player.

In reality I think I'd actually call in all situations and hate myself a lot.

I personally don't even think it's close. I'm probably continuing with something like ATs+/AJo+/KQ/KJs/99+. I honestly didn't even think pre would even come into question although I'm open to the fact that I might be wrong.

I'm betting river because I think I have the best hand a lot and he has a bluffcatcher a lot. I think he's calling a bet with a lot of stuff I beat and checking those hands back if I check to him.

u mean, 4 bet fold?
this is by far the worst play imo.

4b/c worse yo

Of course it is. Unless you are claiming that most people do not usually check to the raiser most of the time?

It's not odd at all. It is the main benefit we derive from being in position. Him being able to lose the minimum doesn't necessarily mean that he will lose only the preflop wagers; I would expect the villain to c-bet an ace or a queen.

But suppose he's on the bottom of his range and he has a ragged suited ace here, the flop comes ace high and you check/call the flop. You think he is barreling most turn cards? lol, he'll be checking back. and if you bet into him on the turn, especially as an overbet, he'll be able to correctly fold at least sometimes.

So, yeah, it's not odd at all that he'll be able to win most of the time we miss and lose less when we hit than he can extract from us when he has us crushed; it's just what being in position allows him to do.

Basically, I hear you saying that you are of the opinion that calling out of position is fine because you think you'll be able to outplay the guy post flop from out of position.

That may be true, I don't know much about your game. But if your skill edge at $50 is so huge that you can overcome the disadvantage of being out of position with a drawing hand and readless against an aggressor on a tight range, then your main leak is that you're not playing higher.

Why do you think most people check to the raiser? Generally the range for the raiser is better (or at least uncapped) than the range of the caller. Since the raiser can represent many more hands that are happy playing for stacks/putting a lot of money than the caller can, as a general strategy the player with the capped/weaker range wants to keep the pot smaller and the player with the stronger/uncapped range is the one who will bet, either attempting to represent a hand that will play for stacks or else put money in so that they can play for stacks. Obviously sometimes the caller will donk and sometimes the raiser will check back, but this is also on boards where typically the caller can have a lot of nutted hands and thus might even be ahead/have more nutted hands in his range than the raiser percentage-wise anyway.

I actually expect most weak Ax to ch back and call 2 as a default (maybe just one?). But if I get such respect when I hit I feel I can win a ton of pots without the nuts.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I realize position is a huge advantage. I just think my hand is so much stronger than a button vs. CO 3b that it's an easy flat despite being oop.

Suppose you are right about all of the above. As far as I can tell, all you have done here is explicate WHY raising preflop normally allows us to retain the initiative. You certainly have not proved that it doesn't exist.

In fact, not only does initiative exist, as a winning poker player, you rely on it as a principle of winning poker. Look at this quote, which I grabbed real quick from FM 3-0, Operations, the US Army's statement of the US doctrine for fighting a war. The concept of "Offensive Operations" is listed as one of the 9 principles of warfare. The army defines offensive operations as:

You see how clearly this relates to poker? Basically, US Army doctrine simply requires its commanders to have a high aggression factor, lol.

To relate it more clearly to poker, just look at a pre-flop raise and a 3 bet as a struggle to determine who will impose his will on the other player. I raise, saying to you, "I am forcing you to call or fold." You 3 bet, saying to me, "no, I am forcing you to call or fold." You see? You're not really doing anything other than trying to force your opponent to choose from options you dictate--that's the essence of "initiative"--forcing your opponent to react to your decisions, rather than you reacting to his.

That's why shoving all in is seen as such a powerful play--because it is the only 100% effective way of constraining your opponent's choices.

That is the best explanation of initiative I have ever seen. Thanks!

check-call the river. it may be nitty but:

1) you get a bet from bluffs here and there
2) you also get a bet from some worst hands who may think they are best (the actual thing you are trying to accomplish by betting here)
3) you dont get more money in with the worst hand
4) you dont get bluff-raised out of the pot in case you bet
5) you get to see his cards. very important if he 3bets you often

you scarifice a bet from hands that would have called you, but won't bet themselves

all in all i think check-calling the river has the most advantages

btw, i dont know why you think that AQ is such an easy 3bet call, esp off position. i almost always fold it for the reasons explained by others above me

So mpethy you are donking every single flop right? After all the goal is to let our opponent react to us and be the aggressor right?

Seriously though I'm not arguing that raising or 3-betting itself is initiative as it gives us multiple ways to win and as I mentioned generally keeps us uncapped which can be important especially in deep spots. But saying that after the 3-bet has been called there is actually a tangible benefit to having the initiative is just plain wrong. Mainly what people mean when they say it relates to hand strength and being capped/uncapped, but he already used that as a reason. If initiative was so important I would just donk all flops to re-establish the initiative. But that would be ******ed.

I honestly think you're overthinking poker. It's a game of math and cards (and psychology if you want to get into leveling). It has nothing to do with war. The goal in poker is to make the best decision at every junction. If the best decision is aggressive, we should be aggressive. But sometimes in poker the passive line is the one that is the most profitable. We should weigh the ev of each decision rather than default saying "I want to be aggressive because the army said so".