JQs - Straight on paired river 3B pot

Betting the flop is generally auto-profitable so I think it's fine to bet. He will have alot of Ax hands, though, but I expect the best of them to cbet OTF, so if he check/calls, I believe we would have to bluff very often on later streets to take him off of weak TP's. When we hit the nuts OTT, ofcourse we also have to bet. Given how he played flop and turn, I believe he would have alot of trips in his range and not so many fullhouses (except with AT maybe, but sometimes he will check/raise the turn with it), so I expect alot of calls from worse hands OTR, but not sure if shoving will maximize our value. Might be that it will. However, It's a very interesting move. Nice hand! His river play is hillarious, might even be that he thought that you were bluffing, trying to represent Ax, so he decided to bluffcatch with Kx. Whatever it is, it's a bad play from his side because in general this call will be hugely -EV.

Villain may want to xc some strong hands too. I do not see him folding that much on this board.
Turn bet should be bigger. This way we will have an easy shove on river.

Nice hand. Very nice sizings imo. Like the river overbet.

I am not making a smallish bet with nuts OTT and an overbet with non-nuts OTR. It is simply flying in the face of reason.

Objectively, you got incredibly lucky, but it is sometimes the case that the worst line makes the most money.

I'd check flop, by the way. I am deeply suspicious of that check. I want the free card.

I agree with Yohan.
I would make a slightly bigger bet OTT but OTR when you don't have the nuts I don't think overbet shove is the best option on the long run. He will have some boats there. Maybe a smallish bet (like 33%?) could work better there.
I think checking on the flop is reasonable. Only reason to bet there is that it might generate auto-profit against the general population.

Originally posted by YohanN7
I am not making a smallish bet with nuts OTT and an overbet with non-nuts OTR. It is simply flying in the face of reason.

Objectively, you got incredibly lucky, but it is sometimes the case that the worst line makes the most money.

I'd check flop, by the way. I am deeply suspicious of that check. I want the free card.

What size would you go OTT & R?

Why are you suspicious of his flop X? I think he will X/C Ax,Kx, TT-QQ, and if he x/r its going to be KK+, Top2 and some broadway combos that we happily fold to.

Originally posted by gxtwo

Originally posted by YohanN7
I am not making a smallish bet with nuts OTT and an overbet with non-nuts OTR. It is simply flying in the face of reason.

Objectively, you got incredibly lucky, but it is sometimes the case that the worst line makes the most money.

I'd check flop, by the way. I am deeply suspicious of that check. I want the free card.

What size would you go OTT & R?

Why are you suspicious of his flop X? I think he will X/C Ax,Kx, TT-QQ, and if he x/r its going to be KK+, Top2 and some broadway combos that we happily fold to.

Turn should be $5.50+. River - something like $4.50.
Why should we not be suspicious when the whole checking range you gave is killing us? There is no need to build the pot...

I am suspicious because that flop hits his range. You can normally forget about Kx. They don't 3-bet preflop. Worse combos should be bluffing or check-folding, though you're probably right that some people waste money by check-calling some smaller pairs.

Incidentally, note that the check-calling and check-raising range you mention beats you in its entirety. Why bet? It is a bet that can't make money when called/raised.

As played flop, I'd go close to pot-sized OTT. I am still suspicious, but now eager to get called/raised by slowplayed hands, and I am setting up for a river shove. EDIT: I change from river shove to small river bet due to river card. I forgot about the final board.

Originally posted by nitrol

Originally posted by gxtwo

Originally posted by YohanN7
I am not making a smallish bet with nuts OTT and an overbet with non-nuts OTR. It is simply flying in the face of reason.

Objectively, you got incredibly lucky, but it is sometimes the case that the worst line makes the most money.

I'd check flop, by the way. I am deeply suspicious of that check. I want the free card.

What size would you go OTT & R?

Why are you suspicious of his flop X? I think he will X/C Ax,Kx, TT-QQ, and if he x/r its going to be KK+, Top2 and some broadway combos that we happily fold to.

Turn should be $5.50+. River - something like $4.50.
Why should we not be suspicious when the whole checking range you gave is killing us? There is no need to build the pot...

I based that range on a X/c. He's still going to x/f some of his range.
Given the flop and our hole cards, a lot of strong Ax are blocked & as mentioned, they would normally cbet.
We have BDFD and a gutter. surely this hand is strong enough to semi bluff?
I also think FD's would be normally cbetting the flop. This gives us the option to Xback turns and rep a flush OTR when another comes

I like everyone's suggestions of betting bigger OTT to set up for river jam. And also agree not to jam this particular river card.

...
We have BDFD and a gutter. surely this hand is strong enough to semi bluff?
...

The bluff part has value only when he folds some worse hands. I don't see a single such hand in his range. (The worse ones have a mandatory c-bet bluff themselves.)

Knowing what we have (BDFD + gutter) is good. Knowing what villain might have is better. Yet better is knowing what villain might put us on. You should even have an idea about what villain thinks we think he has (i.e. what he think he represents to us by checking).

you're assuming villain only 3bets for value and never has x/f range on the flop.
I agree that when we are called OTF he has a hand ahead of us. But i disagree that he automatically wins the hand even though we don't get there.
There are still run outs we can choose to double/ triple to get him off JJ-QQ, 2nd pair and weak Ax.
Edit: although after seeing villains SD hand, i've took a note and won't be firing any river bluffs at him:f_biggrin:

Le us just say that the way you hand read and the way I do it aren't the same. I think you played the hand very badly, some other posters (including yourself) don't.

Line is fine but turn should be bigger to set up a pot sized river jam. On this particular river I would go for a smaller size (no more than 1/2 pot).

I'm struggling to see checking being better than betting on the flop. The only reason I can see is the range advantage that BB has over us (we have no top 2, top set, middle set etc).

However, we will have a value betting range on this board (aq, 33, a3s) so we should also have some bluffs and qjhh seems like a really good candidate. The main reason for this is the poor playability on later streets. Obviously we can continue on a heart and a 10 but we can't profitably call turns with just a gutter. So would check some flush draws (and bet stronger ones) along with some medium strength hands and some of our completely bricked suited connectors (which can be complete give ups or stabs on later streets if he checks again)

Someone above mentioned that he won't X/F this board and that he just has pairs that he is X/C and his complete misses which are "mandatory cbet bluffs". We hit this board fairly well (not many nutted hands but we have alot of suited aces, some suited kx and gutters with our suited broadway hands so in position we aren't folding as much as some people think on an akx flop so for him to auto bet his misses will not show a profit for him.

This is dependant on villains range preflop obviously as if he is a nit that 3b JJ+ ak then we shouldn't be betting this board at all and especially not with qjhh when we block his 2 most likely X/F hands.

However, if villain has a reasonable range he will have some give ups here as well as weaker to medium made hands that will fold to further aggression.

I guess the main thing is here is that if we are checking back this board all of the time then we are getting to the turn with a very weak range as more of our hands are not very strong on this board. IE if we bet this flop with all of our good hands and check all of our medium and weaker hands then villain can always fold flop when we bet if he's not got it and happily bet turn and river with impunity when we check back. He can also just X/R flop and stack us when we bet because we always have a pretty strong hand.

Knowing what we have (BDFD + gutter) is good. Knowing what villain might have is better. Yet better is knowing what villain might put us on. You should even have an idea about what villain thinks we think he has (i.e. what he think he represents to us by checking).

I think going into leveling wars and making broad assumptions about how people at the micros think and how they think you think when you don't have a sample will just end up with you levelling yourself.

That said there are definite player pool reads you can make but I wouldn't go far away from what is solid unless they give you a reason to.

This is a pretty tl;dr post and iv probably missed alot out but I think it's a pretty interesting spot.

I was gonna write a long post too but not feeling like it atm. So I try to make this short.
Villain is OOP and he knows he doesn't have that great fold equity. Ad reduces a lot of draws from both. Imo he can have a wide check call range. That is why I don't see our bet generating autoprofit either.
We called pre to hit something, now we didn't. I don't think it is a problem if our xb range is weak. But imo it necessarily doesn't have to be. I think we could be even checking our entire range. It is a 3bet pot and we will get it all in by the river anyway and I don't see many draws so our good hands wouldn't need much protection.

When we call 3bets it is usually a spot where we are losing money. Our goal is to lose the minimum and I think by betting the flop we are not losing the minimum.
With this kind of hand I want to see a free card and then play according to odds from there on. Another option would be to barrel blindly. If we bet the flop and villain probably calls then we have to continue barreling aggressively to fold out villains mid strength hands.

Originally posted by 01laitken10
...
Someone above mentioned that he won't X/F this board and that he just has pairs that he is X/C and his complete misses which are "mandatory cbet bluffs".
...

Knowing what we have (BDFD + gutter) is good. Knowing what villain might have is better. Yet better is knowing what villain might put us on. You should even have an idea about what villain thinks we think he has (i.e. what he think he represents to us by checking).

I think going into leveling wars and making broad assumptions about how people at the micros think and how they think you think when you don't have a sample will just end up with you levelling yourself.
...

On the first point, no. Someone said that I said that his X/F range is empty. What I have said (implicitly) is that it is slim. The 3-bet bluff is (should be at NL2!) slim to begin with, and, worse hands than our JT (which is what I said, nothing else) have a mandatory bluff. By contrast, he has a plethora of hands that did hit this board that now opts to check. Some of these he will fold to a bet. True. I just don't think they are very many.

Due to the appearance of the board, I think there's no autoprofit. Others reason shallower ("there's always autoprofit when they check, regardless of board") and perhaps more correctly.

On the second point; Many, perhaps most players at NL small, don't worry about your hand. Regs do. But regs play 16 tables while fish play one. It is therefore more likely than not that villain is concerned with what you might be holding. You should go beyond that level. This would mean that you are mot often leveling him, not yourself. But, needless to say, most posters here are only concerned with what villain might be holding. Going to the next level might give a clue. Going beyond that level is not often necessary, but comes into play whenever you are bluff-catching against a reg. A reg will try to represent something.

/**/

Chances are slim that I'm convincing anyone. But consider this: Checking has a guaranteed positive EV (provided you don't screw up on turn). You can't argue with that assessment because you will hit nuts 10% of the time. By contrast, you have to agree that autoprofit for betting is at least debatable. It is also true that in some spots checking is better than betting even if there is autoprofit in a bet. This, together with my suspiciousness of his check on this board (he might very well be sandbagging), makes it a clear check on my part.