3bet Bb vs Bu

Pre is standard.

Flop we can go either way imo. So check or 1/3 pot cbet. I basically only use 1/3 on paired flops in 3bet pots. Reasoning I feel either way is fine is that our 3bet range hits this flop fairly rarely in form of trips, boats or straight draws. At the same time we dont have showdown value so cbetting and taking pot down is great outcome. But we can also go for x-c versus most sizings.

As played turn is really interesting as it does open fd as well which we dont block at all. Issue is that tends to decrease our fe as opponent now more often have stuff like overpair+fd or 7x+gs+fd and of course some trips or boats as well. But we also have double gs along fd. Well basically I feel quite uncomfortable to x-f so I would probably just pot and go with it. Sometimes we will be drawing dead though.

I wonder what response is if I check and he pots it on the flop or I c-bet 1/3 and he raises. I would probably lean fold there.

I want to know how are you thinking about this situation in general so I have few questions for you.

1. What are the reasons you are betting this hand on the flop?
- What makes it a good or a bad hand to bet?

2. What is the difference of betting 33%, 50% or even 100% on this flop?
- How does it affect your opponents or your own play?

The last one could be challenging to answer but try your best to answer and I'll help you with that

Alright let's see:
Before talking about the hand I want to say this is a bad flop for my 3betting range. So I don't think my over all betting frequency is high on this board. Also
I actually miswrote the original post, I bet 1/3 not 1/2.

1. I don't think this a great hand to bet, in hindsight i prefer to keep it simple and default check medium paired boards. But it has some good components like: it has proximity blockers with the 6♣:8♣: It's not much but it is something.
There is little to no value with this bet. As @Ghaleon said betting and taking it down here would be great but I don't think I have enough components to generate enough folds here. The 2nd fd is not strong enough here to turn this hand into a bet neither for value or Fe. Also micro stake players like to overestimate turn good calling hands into a raise. For example JJ68::heart::heart:

2. The bigger the bet the tighter should the opponent continue. On rainbow paired boards in srp I go 40% but on 2 tone paired boards I 45-50%. In 3bet pots I like to size down to 1/3 because the spr is lower. The bigger the bet the less fe villain would think he has. Like when I go pot here my range here should be AA+ and villain has little to no Fe. That being said I am playing PLO10 and villain response differs a lot from one another and also from one moment to the next. So trying to focus on villain here is a bit confusing and might be counterintuitive. Their range is very wide and also their response, as said before, is erratic and differs. Like at this exact spot villain could at one point call all FDs and at another point decide to raise them.

After thinking about it I prefer to x/c all bets 66% or less.
I'm not getting immediate pot odds here if he bets bigger but also if he is potting then it's very likely he shoves turn which is horrible. Not to mention reverse implied odds.

Can't wait to find out how wrong I am

Okay you seem to have a solid understanding of the situation here. That's great

1. I would consider 744 still a low board because the 4 is paired. So the opponent is less likely to have trips than on 774 for example. We also have more big pairs on our range than the opponent does. K-high flushdraw with a gutshot is a good candidate for betting because it can actually get some A-high hands to fold and it still has ways to improve. I would rather check some A-high hands here than this one for that reason.

Thinking of what are the best possible bluffs for your opponent. They are usually some sort of combination of 7, mid overpair, flushdraw and straightdraws. Something that can improve but is most likely not the best hand right now. You are blocking a lot of those combinations. So that is another reason for betting here.

2. I'm betting 33-40% as a default on most of the low paired boards. Lower in position and sometimes higher out of position. Generally small sizing is better against regs and bigger like 50% is good against certain tight players who are not going to find a bluff here. Against regs I want to keep their calling range wider so I can have more room for betting on the turn. As you mentioned betting big narrows our range a lot as well so it would became difficult to maintain balanced range on turn after that. That is why betting small on the flop and big (~3/4) on turn is much better line than the other way around. It's also important to notice that there has to be a lot of turn and even river barrels after betting small on the flop with this hand. But in this case the J♦: is a really bad card for the continuation bet because it is an overcard that opens up a flushdraw and we are not blocking either of them. So I would check the turn on this case.

Based on your answer you seem to be a little worried of getting raised on the hand. Yes that can happen and if you are facing a pot sized raise you are going to fold. I wouldn't like to do it but I would because our hand is blocking a lot of the bluff combinations for the opponent. Only adaptation we could do is to check-call against maniacs. Else betting the flop is a good way to go.

For PL10 you have a good understanding of basic concepts already, keep it up!

If we get raised on flop it's very often going to be trips+ or nutfd with some form of support. So we do very bad versus that. I would not expect that often to get raised by 7x or nutfd blocker type of low equity stuff.

Preflop 3bet is fine but I´d rather bet 1/3 pot on this flop. We are dominating villain in terms of overpairs vs overpairs, so we do not mind keep his range wide by betting smaller, also we get a cheaper price for our bluffs where often both player have nothing on this light texture (this is usally the case on paired boards where you need trips or better to have a solid made hand so it is helpful for playability to chose a smallish sizing). An alternative would be a small check-call as we have a mediocre combodraw with decent equity but no nuttiness nor visibility which suits well for such a line in general and we need to protect our checking range. If villain is stabbing too much we might consider a check-raise. In general this hand is a little too weak, we´d prefer either having the nutflushdraw or an Openended-straightdraw instead of the gutshot but many players become greedy and over-stab in 3bp´s ip on flops so a little more light check-raise is a powerful exploitative adjustment.

I assume villain called the flop cbet: The turn is not a great card for us as we did not improve significantly: we still have no SDV but it might improved villains equity by delivering a backdoorflushdraw. Our K♥: blocks villains :Kx::Kx: range which is nice when value-betting but a bad thing if we are bluffing. Range vs range equities should run pretty close here. By picking up the second gutshot together with our pretty high flushdraw we still have decent hand-vs-range equity in particular, so I don´t think trying to fold out some more of villains overpairs with a 2barrel bluff or some mediocre combo stuff like pair+draw and naked stuff is a mistake. But we would be in gray area deviating from GTO I guess as Solver would check-fold K♥:T♠:9♥:7♠: on a 8♥:5♥:5♦:Q♦: (also second-nutflushdraw+2gs blocking and having no SDV). But I dont think Solver-play represents common dynamics in this spot very well.

My default sizing here is 1/2 pot in 3BP. Due to the pair on the board we are basically never betting pot, this holds true for all lockdown textures in 3bp afaik. Static boards are also very player dependant, so it can sometimes be best to just give up here right now either if we do not give us decent FE against mentioned overpairs (when villain is more loose or does has no range perception of our oop betting range) or if villain is tight or passive enough to let us realize our equity towards river-play.

Originally posted by ColorFlusher

1. I would consider 744 still a low board because the 4 is paired. So the opponent is less likely to have trips than on 774 for example. K-high flushdraw with a gutshot is a good candidate for betting because it can actually get some A-high hands to fold and it still has ways to improve. I would rather check some A-high hands here than this one for that reason.

That's a nice distinction between betting K-high hands and checking A-high hands.

Originally posted by ColorFlusher

Based on your answer you seem to be a little worried of getting raised on the hand. Yes that can happen and if you are facing a pot sized raise you are going to fold. I wouldn't like to do it but I would because our hand is blocking a lot of the bluff combinations for the opponent. Only adaptation we could do is to check-call against maniacs. Else betting the flop is a good way to go.

Yeah villain here was loose aggressive. I didn't like betting because I didn't think am generating enough folds but also he is going to have a high raising frequency. Also he raises in a merged way and I was afraid of folding decent equity so I wanted to check realize my equity, and maybe go for a delayed c-bet instead I if don't improve on turn. On this turn I would have c-bet.

Normally yeah, but he was a maniac so I wanted to check, realize my equity, and maybe go for a delayed c-bet if I miss the turn like this turn.

Originally posted by Mascherano95
I assume villain called the flop cbet: The turn is not a great card for us as we did not improve significantly: we still have no SDV but it might improved villains equity by delivering a backdoorflushdraw. Our K♥: blocks villains :Kx::Kx: range which is nice when value-betting but a bad thing if we are bluffing. Range vs range equities should run pretty close here. By picking up the second gutshot together with our pretty high flushdraw we still have decent hand-vs-range equity in particular, so I don´t think trying to fold out some more of villains overpairs with a 2barrel bluff or some mediocre combo stuff like pair+draw and naked stuff is a mistake. But we would be in gray area deviating from GTO I guess as Solver would check-fold K♥:T♠:9♥:7♠: on a 8♥:5♥:5♦:Q♦: (also second-nutflushdraw+2gs blocking and having no SDV). But I dont think Solver-play represents common dynamics in this spot very well.

Good analysis of the spot. I think the difficulty of playing this hand on the turn is the position. Getting called here would mean that we either have to overbluff the river or check without any decent showdown value out of position too often. Both options aren't really appealing. Solver is probably worried of an A-high flushdraw as well.

Originally posted by BunBun00
Yeah villain here was loose aggressive. I didn't like betting because I didn't think am generating enough folds but also he is going to have a high raising frequency. Also he raises in a merged way and I was afraid of folding decent equity so I wanted to check realize my equity, and maybe go for a delayed c-bet instead I if don't improve on turn. On this turn I would have c-bet.

Yeah I like that plan a lot. Then continuing many rivers as a bluff. Maybe not the diamonds but most of the blanks.

If BTN doesn't fold to 3bets, then solver would just call with K986ds. The thing is, from BB you get heavy discount to see the flop, so we shouldn't 3bet heavily unless it's an exploit to our opponent.

On my sims, the EV of call or 3bet is quite the same, with or without FE: -0.5bb.

If the hand would be K987ds, then the EV goes to breakeven and would be a 3bet even without FE

Originally posted by ColorFlusher

Originally posted by Mascherano95
I assume villain called the flop cbet: The turn is not a great card for us as we did not improve significantly: we still have no SDV but it might improved villains equity by delivering a backdoorflushdraw. Our K♥: blocks villains :Kx::Kx: range which is nice when value-betting but a bad thing if we are bluffing. Range vs range equities should run pretty close here. By picking up the second gutshot together with our pretty high flushdraw we still have decent hand-vs-range equity in particular, so I don´t think trying to fold out some more of villains overpairs with a 2barrel bluff or some mediocre combo stuff like pair+draw and naked stuff is a mistake. But we would be in gray area deviating from GTO I guess as Solver would check-fold K♥:T♠:9♥:7♠: on a 8♥:5♥:5♦:Q♦: (also second-nutflushdraw+2gs blocking and having no SDV). But I dont think Solver-play represents common dynamics in this spot very well.

Good analysis of the spot. I think the difficulty of playing this hand on the turn is the position. Getting called here would mean that we either have to overbluff the river or check without any decent showdown value out of position too often. Both options aren't really appealing. Solver is probably worried of an A-high flushdraw as well.

Originally posted by BunBun00
Yeah villain here was loose aggressive. I didn't like betting because I didn't think am generating enough folds but also he is going to have a high raising frequency. Also he raises in a merged way and I was afraid of folding decent equity so I wanted to check realize my equity, and maybe go for a delayed c-bet instead I if don't improve on turn. On this turn I would have c-bet.

Yeah I like that plan a lot. Then continuing many rivers as a bluff. Maybe not the diamonds but most of the blanks.

Thanks. Yes Turn is a little tricky already, we´ll have that often on static textures with loose ranges where villain is not playing fit-fold and tries to take it down. For this we have to have a rough idea of our river strategies and by not continuing too loose nor overfold so assessing villains tendencies correctly becomes the main thing. Even if villain is unbalanced otr it is still hard to play well oop and we have lots of uncertainty due to the rarity of the spot.

Theoretically we´ll still have quite often go with it and pay off value-bet for our stacks, this surely looks worse then it is if our assumption is not totally wrong. The question occuring again and again is if villain is actually still bluff-shoving enough. If villain turns out to have more straightforward and tight continuing ranges postflop or just adjusting towards that like many regulars do, our strategy still might come out a little too loose and suboptimal even if we balance it well on turns and rivers.

At the end of the day, the average reg just does not bluff-shove enough cause he has a handstrength-orientated mindset that is comforting for him. I think this applies to many situations facing a bet against a reg oop. SO check-folding otr is surely something we have to consider. On the other hand if the opponent plays passively or described as above we can overrealize SDV or even bluffshove if we think we´ll get credit. I think the amount of value we get out of single-street analysis is limited because we should always look at the hand as a whole. There is surely no "one-line-fits-it-all".

Originally posted by Kyyberi
If BTN doesn't fold to 3bets, then solver would just call with K986ds. The thing is, from BB you get heavy discount to see the flop, so we shouldn't 3bet heavily unless it's an exploit to our opponent.

On my sims, the EV of call or 3bet is quite the same, with or without FE: -0.5bb.

If the hand would be K987ds, then the EV goes to breakeven and would be a 3bet even without FE

+1

Agree, and our BB 3bet range is not that wide. It´s not like in NLHE where we´d just bluff 3bet a ton. We´d have to make sure that we actually up against a range where we´d push equity and dominate other hands postflop. Our hand is already marginal when it comes to this but it´s probably fine against a default 45% RFI.

im just defending pre. ofc i have like 3% 3 bet stat rofl.

think we should bet flop. our perceived range should have a lot of over pairs and we're blocking a lot of continues. can bet small. i feel like we've got an equity advantage but not a nut advantage, so i like a really aggro flop strategy here with small sizing. basically a game of reverse whack-a-mole. im checking turn.

1. What are the reasons you are betting this hand on the flop?
- What makes it a good or a bad hand to bet?

betting

I think one reason this is a good hand to bet is because we have a weak draw. That means if we get raised, we don't really mind folding. Usually if we are raised villain will have at least trips, ergo we are either drawing slim or dead. If the board wasn't paired we'd be much more interested in seeing the turn card, and then might adopt a check call strategy to make sure that happens.
We're out of position. If villain has a weak holding (99KQ maybe), he might just bet it if we check and show weakness but if we bet he might just fold.

As the three bettor we can represent easily an overpair by betting. This is a hand that some hands villain has will be dead against, but might have substantial equity against our holding, which is still as of yet k9 high.

checking

If we bet and villain calls, we're going to act first on the turn. It seems to me, a lot of the time we're not going to be in a pleasant situation. Like if we brick out the turn, we don't really have any good options.

We do run a risk of getting bluff or semi bluff raised and folding substantial equity. This seems unlikely, although the better our opponent the more likely it becomes.

The Fe in this exact scenario might be 0, but shouldn't we take future hands Fe into account? What I mean is by 3betting this hand we can stop villain in the future from over attacking our blinds too much. Use 3betting to reign in over aggression, especially when short handed. If we don't 3bet enough then villain will open way more hands which is bad for us.

Aren't you worried about allowing him to play overly aggressive? If you have low 3bet freq pre, and check most if not all flops oop then won't he be able to open very wide and c-bet very wide without consequences? Isn't that bad for us especially short handed where he will be able steal a lot of blinds and attack many flops?