IP paird board vs villains double check - should I bluff here?

I think if you're going to bluff on a the third heart, you pretty much need to bet the flop when MP checks to you.
If MP has a K you might get away with a bluff, but let's face it, you have a busted gutshot, there's a made flush on a paired board,
You can get A-high to fold, but to set up the bluff you need to pounce on the opening given to you when MP checks the flop.

I like it. V's line indicates that he doesnt hold much. So you could start betting OTT. MO OTR makes sense to me. It's a good card to apply pressure on all of his bluffcatchers.

You could go for a 3bet preflop and pressure his wide range. His range should be even more wide because of UTG open limp. This is preferable option to me because otherwise you risk multiway pot and could finish the hand right away. Your FE is pretty high as well and even if you do get called your hand has a potential

I don't like it for multiple reasons. First of all your line doesn't make much sense because you missed c-bet on the flop. Second we don't know much about villains range, we have 20 hands on him and it's way too soon to make assumptions on his tendencies, maybe he plays a Kx, a full-house or a flush like this, who knows. Third and most important reason why I don't like it, is because we don't have to. We don't have to make plays like this to achieve a reasonable win-rate on NL2. It's just really spewy in my opinion to fire 4 potsizes into an unknown on some river. You are going to loose unnecassary buy-ins if you keep doing this. There's no reason to do it. I would advice to look up weak opponents, make hands and win their money. Not make weird bluffs like this.

Villain was the aggressor pre-flop. So you can't miss a Cbet on the flop.

Anyway I don't think you need to bet so big on the turn and over bet shove to bluff in spots like this. I don't know how you play you're value hands, but I expect you would make most likely a smaller bet. Especially on the river.

Cheers,
SDK1987

Originally posted by SDK1987
Villain was the aggressor pre-flop. So you can't miss a Cbet on the flop.

Thanks, my bad, I misread the pre-flop action. In that case: fold pre.

Originally posted by LookAwayNow

Originally posted by SDK1987
Villain was the aggressor pre-flop. So you can't miss a Cbet on the flop.

Thanks, my bad, I misread the pre-flop action. In that case: fold pre.

That seems reasonable indeed. Offcourse QTs can play well post-flop, but against a 5x iso raise you can easily be dominated.

MP should check a lot on the flop OOP vs a button cold call. I wouldn't necessarily consider this as showing weakness.

In my opinion, you cannot rule out a flush draw just because he didn't bet it on the flop. Maybe he was careful with flush draws on the flop. Why would villain want to bloat the pot with a flush draw on a paired flop where he might already be dead against hands like 99? BTN should have a lot of pocket pairs in his range that probably won't fold to a bet on the flop.

This line isn't always going to work as it makes very little sense. I got lucky this time that V folded, yesterday I did not
It's from watching MartaiMrko videos and trying to emulate his bluff lines without the thought process he goes through first.

Originally posted by jiffybag
This line isn't always going to work as it makes very little sense. I got lucky this time that V folded, yesterday I did not
It's from watching MartaiMrko videos and trying to emulate his bluff lines without the thought process he goes through first.

Is that the one where the statement "attack the check" comes from?

I saw that on a video or coaching session, and since then I've been watching for it.
The nifty thing is that if you flop the nutz and check, players that live by that rule suddenly find themselves check/raised.

OOP you can also x/r as a bluff if the flop favours your calling range.

Somehow you have to balance this sort of thing though.