Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) - Full-Tilt Hand Converter from HandHistoryConverter.com

Hero (SB) ($32.73)
BB ($34.87)
UTG ($23.15)
MP ($25)
Button ($25.70)

Preflop: Hero is SB with J, 9
2 folds, Button bets $0.75, Hero raises to $2.75, 1 fold, Button calls $2

Flop: ($5.75) 5, 4, K (2 players) Hero checks, Button bets $4, Hero raises to $29.98 (All-In),

BT 36/26 Steal 42 Fold to 3bet 3of4. ~150 hands

3 bet expecting a fold a lot. I figured if i checked the flop he would be betting a lot of the time and i could just shove. Does it look to bluffy?

If i near pot flop, he has about a psb bet left on turn. He hasnt folded to many c bets

It looks like you have a flush draw.

OOP, you need to bet/bet and get it in on the turn with a decent draw like this.

edit - I just took your word about the pot management. It's pretty obvious that it's not a near pot sized bet by the turn. Bet about 3.50 + you can fold to a raise. If called, you can barrel the turn.

At these stakes it is often hard to make this work because a lot of villain's think "I have top pair, I can't fold." Also, at these limits, most players only do this as a bluff or semi-bluff with a draw and most good players know this. That's why, even though a lot of players don't do it, and tend to slowplay, if you had a set of 5's a check raise all-in could be a good play on the flop.

If i bet big $5.25 $5.5 It ll be about a $16 pot with ~$18 behind. but yeh i think i counted wrong while playing the hand too.

At the time i was thinking check and let him bluff because i figure he would very often. Then i realized in his spot id call so many hands so fast.

And he did.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) - Full-Tilt Hand Converter from HandHistoryConverter.com

Hero (SB) ($32.73)
BB ($34.87)
UTG ($23.15)
MP ($25)
Button ($25.70)

Preflop: Hero is SB with J, 9
2 folds, Button bets $0.75, Hero raises to $2.75, 1 fold, Button calls $2

Flop: ($5.75) 5, 4, K (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $4, Hero raises to $29.98 (All-In), Button calls $18.95 (All-In)

Turn: ($51.65) 3 (2 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($51.65) 4 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $51.65 | Rake: $2.58

K10h

We aren't trying to get him to fold top pair. That will never work in a 3bet pot unless super deep... what we're trying to do is gain value from villains air hands by giving them a chance to put $ into the pot that they normally wouldn't. I don't think it's the right idea though.

I'd much prefer to just bet the flop and hopefully make some profit on that bet itself. That sets up a turn bet that will hopefully be profitable if we can fold out 99-QQ. The fact that we need to play our draws the same as we play our made hands is secondary. Though it is a factor.

The flop isn't the problem, it's pre

I agree vs an unknown. We should still be playing ABC and super tight out of the blinds. I've had some misunderstandings about your stance on this though.

In the SB, I 3bet wide. I rarely a lite 3bet. Though sometimes I will when I expect a fold every time. I've read posts by you saying that 3betting a polarized range is correct in the blinds. Is this right? Doesn't make sense to me.

You should be polarized OOP not wide.

Not sure what about it doesn't make sense to you

OP, this really looks like a flush draw. You are not check/shoving a set here ever, so you must be drawing. A smaller c/r would provide you with the same information. If he has a K he's getting the money in with your CRAI because it is such an obvious draw. I like c/r smaller. Something like $13.50. You still fold out his non-top pair hands, and if he does have TP you get to see another card with your draw before committing your stack, which is very important given the fact that he will stack off with a K here

Also, when we C/R in this spot, we have both FDs and TPTK+ type hands in our range.

The fact that you say "it looks like a FD" because hero has it shouldn't make you put the two together.

Maybe the definition?

Wide would be a top % of hands. Top 7.7% vs BTN open for instance. (88+,ATs+,KJs+,AQo+,KQo)

Polarized would be something like: JJ+,AQs+,AKo and 55,22,A5s,A2s,K9s,Q9s,T7s,JTo.

Between the two ranges, which would you choose from the blind? And why?

No. It's that top pairs would be expected to bet this flop to protect vs all the suited junk that a button opener can flat a 3bet with and get value from those same suited hands. (Mainly broadways)

I'm generally choosing different hands in the polarized range but i'd rather have the second.

That's true, but that doesn't mean we c-bet 100% of the time we have Kx
I.e. the wider my opponent calls my 3-bets the more likely I am to check this flop with say AA

Yeah, I just mashed random hands in the 2nd range. I'd really like to hear why you want a polarized range in this situation.

My logic suggests the opposite of what you've been saying. Wide OOP, polarized IP.

Without history, the less likely we are to check this. It's 25NL on FullTilt. We don't have the history so I'd read this as a flush draw always.

If the high card was offsuit like Kd4c5c, then I would read it as more TP+draw hands(doesn't care about giving a free card) or KcX with the backdoor redraw(this one is less likely imo)

This takes a really long time to write out so here's a more simpler way

If you're OTB and there's a guy that's 3-betting you, would you want him to have top X% of hands when he 3-bets

or

some % be top, and some % be ?

i dont see why "how our hand looks" is an issue here.

It's been 150 hands.
Regardless of my personal history with him, I'd know how he plays in 3-bet pots by now

(And in this particular situation, I'd agree checking with Kx is likely to be bad, but I'm just saying just because someone C/R's as the 3-bettor on a 2-tone board, his range is more than just FD's)

I 4bet/fold in position a lot so it matters slightly less than it would vs someone floating a lot of 3bets. If I were floating a lot of 3bets(villain dependant), I would rather be vs a polarized range that is going to play post-flop with very little equity.

IE - you 3bet 22 OOP and don't hit a set. If you continue trying to bluff me off of my underpair, you don't have equity to fall back on.

While wide OOP/polarized IP is intuitive to me. I did a web search to see what coaches think. A few results were of BalugaWhale arguing for my argument. I really want to hear your thought process(if you could take the time) as there are probably some good points in there.

I think it is better to polarize IP and 3bet wide OOP.

My reasoning is this. When you are 3betting in position, it is usually when you are on the button or cutoff, to an ep, mp, or co raise. I would much rather be 3betting a polarized range against these positions because stuff like AJs and KQs does badly against their ranges (the earlier position the original raise, the worse it is).

OOP if you 3bet wide it is usually against the BTN or CO. In this case something like KQs is going to fair far better against their range, and polarizing your range isn't necessary. Plus, when you get called and you are oop, having a wide range rather than a polarized range will make play much easier post flop.

Thoughts?

I'm talking about the hand and not in general. If we're vs good opponents with history (a lot of variables that we don't have), then we can start thinking about balancing both to protect our ranges and to get more value out of our made hands.

Pretty much the simplest part of my argument.

OOP, high cards(KQo)/high suited cards(Axs) will still have great equity vs the BTN/CO calling range.

IP, our opponent is way less likely to have a calling range. When he does, it's super super easy to read(99-JJ,AQ) and we can give up with our polarized 'air' hands when the board hits that range.

This depends on how you define what you 3-bet as a bluff.
I remember BW (I don't want to speak on his behalf, but this is what I remember, so if it's not what he thinks, then blame me) talking about what it means to be "dominated"

If we're to take the example of 3-betting T9s vs K9s, obviously K9s is better (and this is what BW is saying) because if we really think about what "domination" is, K9s can dominate some of the hands villain can call the 3-bet with, while T9s dominates nothing.

This ultimately boils down to our equity calculations when we 3-bet and get called. (Obviously when he folds or when he 4-bets we have a different scenario)

FWIW I'm never 3-betting T9s, which is why it would seem like BW and I are saying different things, but we're not really.

I.e. lets say you have a player 3-betting 8% of the time from BB and he's only 3-betting the top 8%, then he has a wide range of what you posted.

If I have a 3-bet % of 8 (which I don't but that's a topic for another thread) I'll likely be 3-betting the top 3-4% of my hands (say JJ+/AQ+) and some other miscellaneous.

There's a lot of advantages to having a polarized range than a wide range OOP.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about what BW is saying

As played i think this is a good line IF you are also doing this with your monsters some of the time.

Oh, and to clear a possible misunderstanding...I'm not advocating you 3-bet a wide range IP

I just realized I'm polarized when I'm OOP and IP, and I previously said I wasn't.

Oops.