JJ mw on 622

I still cbet on flop for value and protection vs OC and FD.

This seems like an ideal spot for a delayed CBet.
As the flop favours the opponent, check/call at least one street.
If opponent checks behind, bet 1/2 to 2/3 pot on any turn T+
If opponent doesn't, I would call, and call turn on any card less than Q.

***I'm not a hold'em expert!

Bet bet bet

There was an article here so I can say u're at monkey in the middle position where according to that article u should check with any hand.
So as this being said I would just pot size bet it.
I see a lot of worse hands that would call here, even A high call here often, if u want to be tricky and use smaller sizing than pot bet.

Agree with bet for value there are so many worse hands villains can call with,flush draws,pocket pairs and 6x you can also fold out Ax Kx Qx and deny villains equity so not a spot you want to give free cards. Dont worry to much about 66 or 2x until you have reason to worry about those hands given both are a small part of villains over all ranges.

I don't worry to much about this hand. Just go for 3 streets of value so long you have at least a over pair. Villains on NL2 can call with a lot of random hands.

Cheers,
SDK1987

so versus two competent regulars, you have a mandatory check here. you want to see a SD and cant face a lot of action.

even versus two recreationals a check is fine. they have ranges, too and range and nutadvantege is on their side. especially the BB can have some 2x in his range. so i would go for a lot of XCs.

Here is a video which explains why you should mostly check in this spot.

I wonder if you might want to x/r here, instead of x/c?

If one of the players was a fish, I'd play as if HU vs the fish and ignore the reg. In that case I'd start betting large-ish right away.

Checking permits the check/raise and the delayed CBet.
great video monteCarlol — thanks!

I'm always wary about applying high-stakes techniques to the micros though.
I think these techniques start to have undisputed value at NL 25

Originally posted by monteCarlol
Here is a video which explains why you should mostly check in this spot.

I wonder if you might want to x/r here, instead of x/c?

If one of the players was a fish, I'd play as if HU vs the fish and ignore the reg. In that case I'd start betting large-ish right away.

That's a full ring high roller tournament it's just not comparable to 6 max micro stakes cash games.

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by monteCarlol
Here is a video which explains why you should mostly check in this spot.

I wonder if you might want to x/r here, instead of x/c?

If one of the players was a fish, I'd play as if HU vs the fish and ignore the reg. In that case I'd start betting large-ish right away.

That's a full ring high roller tournament it's just not comparable to 6 max micro stakes cash games.

First we want to try to figure out what is the optimal play in theory, and then we can think about if it makes sense to deviate and why.
Optimal here is to check mostly. And we might deviate when we play vs recs (or a micro stakes player pool in general) and play the hand in a vacuum because players will not adjust.

And if we are not able to figure this out in game, we can default to checking range whenever we are the aggressor in a SRP OOP.

Originally posted by monteCarlol

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by monteCarlol
Here is a video which explains why you should mostly check in this spot.

I wonder if you might want to x/r here, instead of x/c?

If one of the players was a fish, I'd play as if HU vs the fish and ignore the reg. In that case I'd start betting large-ish right away.

That's a full ring high roller tournament it's just not comparable to 6 max micro stakes cash games.

First we want to try to figure out what is the optimal play in theory, and then we can think about if it makes sense to deviate and why.
Optimal here is to check mostly. And we might deviate when we play vs recs (or a micro stakes player pool in general) and play the hand in a vacuum because players will not adjust.

And if we are not able to figure this out in game, we can default to checking range whenever we are the aggressor in a SRP OOP.

I don't agree i just think it's a super easy value bet on the flop Your extrapolating a tournament strategy to cash games and the the two are polar opposites.

There exist no nash-equilibrium for 3 players, so theoretic "optimal play" is kind of an empty concept.

What I'd do is define the weakest opponents tendencies and then use this as a basis for my strategy. EG in this example:

If BB plays straightforward -> i'd bet to get value from MP and protect.
If MP plays too high VPIP from EP -> i'd bet to get value from MP.
If MP is a player that'll often probe vs checks (with 33-TT, bluffs, 6x) -> I'd check.

And then we will be exploitable by the other player, but that's fine - because the EV from the weak player will compensate for that.

Originally posted by Pakichu777
There exist no nash-equilibrium for 3 players, so theoretic "optimal play" is kind of an empty concept.

What I'd do is define the weakest opponents tendencies and then use this as a basis for my strategy. EG in this example:

If BB plays straightforward -> i'd bet to get value from MP and protect.
If MP plays too high VPIP from EP -> i'd bet to get value from MP.
If MP is a player that'll often probe vs checks (with 33-TT, bluffs, 6x) -> I'd check.

And then we will be exploitable by the other player, but that's fine - because the EV from the weak player will compensate for that.

wait, do you mean that nash equilibrium does literally not exist multi way? that would really surprise me, I have never heard that before... (don't really have a solid math background, so it is very well possible that things that surprise me are real ♦)
my understanding is that it is too hard to find nash equlibriums multi way

Originally posted by monteCarlolwait, do you mean that nash equilibrium does literally not exist multi way?

Or possibly it's to complex to solve at the moment but that wouldn't mean it doesn't exist and we should try our best to play optimally i would think.