Nl 200 66

Yeah, you can try to rep Jx that way, but I think just betting the turn and repping Kx is better option. If we check, he can bet all his floats and we have to fold, that sucks pretty much. I'd just check the turn with intention of giving up. Don't like to put any money in pot with 66 on that board.

would you ever consider just c/folding the flop since you expect him to float you a lot and make kinda light calldowns?

I'd just bet 2 streets here for him to fold 88-99-1010 and all floats that will give us credit and not mess about with us. If not then checking is definitely to check fold.

Puh I think you can argue for lots of lines here.
Actually I don't mind the fish too much in the pot as he will discourage the reg from floating.

Usually I'd argue that in a spot like this if we want a bluffingrange I'd rather have one that has some equity vs Kx and PPs (therefore construct it mostly with Ax and Kx myself), but given the reg folded more against us and is even less likely to play back with a player left to act, AND the fishs range is wide (i.e. lots of FEQ vs him) I think a cbet is fine here.

However, it's a clear bet1-or-bet3 spot because once we get called by either player, their ranges are quite strong so we won't have much FEQ on the turn.
You have to keep in mind that if we continue barreling, it is in order to get Kx to fold which is quite a hard goal to achieve because we need to bet pretty big on the river, perhaps even overbet and we still can't be sure to have enough FEQ.

So imo you played it perfect. Maybe betting 11 on the flop is an option.

you would consider Kx to be a bluff on the turn?

I disagree that its a bet 1 or bet 3 spot and think in general we shouldn't think like that. If we are always betting once or betting 3 times its going to be very very difficult to play turns. There are lots and lots (and this is perhaps one of those) spots where betting twice is the best line.

Interesting.
In general I absolutely agree that we shouldn't always think "bet1 or bet3", but there are definitely spots where it applies and imo this is one of them for the reasons stated above (he has a strong range after calling the flop).

Why do you think we should bet 2 streets? Because of floats?
Or to rephrase: What do you think his callingrange on the flop looks like?

What do you think about c/mR turn if you think he floats a lot?
Sure midpairs will checkbeh, but you can just bluff them out on the river.

Originally posted by Bierbaer
Interesting.
In general I absolutely agree that we shouldn't always think "bet1 or bet3", but there are definitely spots where it applies and imo this is one of them for the reasons stated above (he has a strong range after calling the flop).

Why do you think we should bet 2 streets? Because of floats?
Or to rephrase: What do you think his callingrange on the flop looks like?

Not because of floats just to get his stubborn range to fold. I recently had a dispute with Galen Hall who suggested 3 barrelling was superior to 2 barrelling, but I think we eventually agreed that in most cases 2 barrelling >>>>> 3 barreling as the hands that villain continues with on the turn will sigh call the river, whilst the point of doubling is to get him to sigh fold the turn.

Hm then it's down to difference in assumptions.
It probably depends on site, gameflow etc whether to 2- or to 3barrel.
I held a coaching a couple of weeks ago where I calculated a couple of spots and in all of them a 2barrel was breakeven to slightly -EV whereas the 3barrel was slightly +EV.
But it was ofc under the assumption that those marginal hands call the turn (at least some of them) because they suspect a bluffingrange and then sigh-fold the river.