PP below TP on Txx board as pfr

I'm not sure about the flop call. He raises 15% but from what I see, people raise more oop than ip.
Moreover, even if he has a lot of bluffs here, turn and river will be really hard to play with your hand as some overcards will hit a decent amount of the time.

The opponent is raising 15% but he has a low foldtocbet on the turn, which suggests that he has a strong calling range on the flop and therefore his raising range should be more polarized.

But I agree that 99 is not the best hand to call a raise on this spot. I suppose that calling with AQ/AK is better.

But if we don't want to have a huge bet/folding range against a guy who is capable of bluffraising ip, with which hands would you call?

Some ovcards, gshots, etc to rebluff in certain runouts or to hit a strong hand? Interesting...

Thanks for your comments

I guess my strategy would be to c/f sometimes with air rather than cbetting 100%, to c/c some hands that wouldn't support a raise (such as 99), to bet/call sets, TP and JJ+, and to bet/call or bet/3bet flush draws.

You can also bet/3bet some KQhh, KJhh or some A2s, A3s if you have some in your preflop calling range.

Flop: how often does he bet when checked to? I dont agree with your reasoning. If he is inly continuing with a rage of hands that has 99 beat then u shouldnt be valuebetting this hand.

If he defends a wide range then making a thin valuebet with 99 is fine.

As played definitely betcall the flop. And fold on this turn card.

The opponent was betting around 67% vs missed cbets ip.

The problem is that I don't like to develop a check/calling range oop with vulnerable hands. Check/calling 99 looks not very good to me:

a) The opponent will have us crushed with his value bets
b) His bluffs will have quite a lot of equity
c) We will end up folding the best hand or calling with the worse hand very often (very bad playability)

So even if we have a lot of equity on the flop, I don't see how we are going to be able to realize it. If we want to have a check calling range, I just prefer to check call with Tx, bottom pairs (we have at least 5 outs to improve) and hands such as AK or AQ with bd flushdraw. With these hands we have showdown equity AND we can improve to beat some of the opponent's bluffs.

On the other hand, if we bet and the opponent is likely to fold some ovcards, etc. that's good for us. More over, the opponent can call with Ahigh and lower pocket pairs and then try to check them down. So I prefer to bet flop and check turn with this hand. However, it is also true that our hand doesn't work very well as a bluff either...

I suppose I will need to learn how to use Cardrunners EV and compare both lines, etc.

But I also understand your point and I know that many people would do what you recommend. And I also know that as long as we can check/call with part of our range on the turn and river, the opponent can't exploit us blablabla, but whatever, hehehe.

Thanks!

Example of how I would play my entire range on this flop against this opponent. What do you think?

My opening range: 22+,A8s+,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,87s,AJo+,KJo+
Total combos on the flop: 191

Checkraise: 26 combos (13%)
Value check/raises: TT, 33, 22 (9combos)
Bluff check/raises: heart bd fd (11 combos) + AKs/AQs/AJs without bdfd (6combos)

Vs small 3bet:
I should continue with 13 combos: 9 combos of sets and 4 combos of AhKh, AhQh, AhJh, KhQh

Cbet: 125 combos (65%)

-Strong cbetting range: AA-JJ, ATs: 27 combos
-Medium cbetting range: KTs, QTs, JTs, T9s, T8s: 15 combos
-Cbet bluffing range: 83 combos
Flushdraws: 11 combos
99-44: 36 combos
Offsuit ovcards with bd fd: 30 combos
AKo without bd fd: 6 combos

Vs raise: 65 combos
Strong and medium cbetting range: 42 combos
FD: 11 combos
AKo with bd fd: 6 combos
AQo with bd fd: 6 combos

P.D: notice I would bet/fold 99....hehehe

What if we x/call some A:cX:c and TT beside middlish hands like Txs/99, so we can defend our x/calling range better on most runouts?

That makes sense to "balance" our check-calling range. But do you think that 99 works well in our check-calling range? Would you also check-call with 44-88?

Originally posted by Shakaflaka
That makes sense to "balance" our check-calling range. But do you think that 99 works well in our check-calling range?

I dont really get your point here. 99 will be hard to play oop on this board anyway, no matter if we cbet (and get raised or called/floated), or x/call (and get barreled). I dont think we can avoid though decisions with it. But if we have a 'balanced' x/calling range, then we can fold 99 to a third barrel (on some turncards even to a second barrel), knowing that our range is okay, cause we have some strong (even very strong) hands to continue with, and we are just folding the bottom of our range.

Originally posted by Shakaflaka
Would you also check-call with 44-88?

It seems too wide to me, we cant defend such a weak range even if we have TT and some nutflushdraws in it. I think I'd x/call with 88, and maybe bet 44-77 cause they are weaker / more vulnerable. We can even x/raise some combos, like 4:c4/5:c5 with weak backdoor potential, depends on our whole range I guess.

Ok, so you would check/call 88 and 99 and bet 44-77 becasue "they are weaker and more vulnerable".

My point is that for me 99 and 88 are pretty much as vulnerable and weak as 44-77 and for that reason I wouldn't include them in my check/calling range. But that doesn't make a huge difference when constructing our range, I guess.

But i don't like saying we can check/call 99 becasue we will have a "balanced range". We can balance our check/calling range with or without 99. So my question was whether it is best to bet/fold, bet/call, check/fold, check/call etc. with this kind of hand on this board. And after thinking about it, I like bet/folding (second option for me is to check/fold or check/raise as a bluff). As you said, this hand will be very difficult to play oop anyway.

But I agree that having a check/calling range here would be nice against a guy that folds quite a lot to cbets and bets a lot when checked to.

You have a point with vulnerability, Villain can have some 98s/87s, with more overcards to 44 than 88, but it doesnt make too much of a difference I guess, and his broadway combos will have 6 out against our pockets anyway.

Also agree, that we can have a good strategy with or without a x/calling range. But if you dont have any exploitative reason vs this specific Villain, then why do you think it's higher EV to bet/fold 99, then to x/call?
He raises 15% on the flop, which is quite high, and also attacks checks a lot.
If we dont have a x/calling range, then we should bet/call a bit wider I guess (cause our cbetting range is wider).

But this is an interesting spot, and I can easily be wrong.