3 bet pot 2nd pair turns into trips

You can also just call the river or you expect villain will call a raise with a ace.

Otherwise you need to fold if villain shoves on you. That's always tough with trips.

Cheers,
SDK1987

PF: I may 3b this sometimes at high stakes (or just play a 3b or fold strategy with 0 calling range in HJ vs UTG) but I ALWAYS flat this at lower stakes. Just use a very polarized range of QQ+/AK and bluffs, don't depolarize your 3bet range with KQs AJs AQ TT JJ and make life hell for yourself - Firstly you're not going to get squeezed all that often which is the main drawback of flat calling here. Secondly you don't really know how to play vs a 4bet usually (you would typically have to fold vs a 4bet which would be a pity)

Flop: I usually check this back. IF you choose to bet, you need to call on blank runouts to bluff catch vs straight draws. I would also opt for 1/3 pot sizing usually.

River: Calling would be way too nitty. QX is worth 3 streets/bets so you need to raise River to get in the 3rd bet for vlaue. So raise/fold or raise/call?
I think 97% of players wouldn't dare to bet/3betshove the River as a bluff, making this a relatively easy raise/fold spot. he has every single AQ and 88 combo, these two hands are in everyone's call 3bet ranges.

Exploitatively do you have value with a raise on the river though? Maybe not? Maybe AJ and AK continues to check again? I don't know but you have some value vs QJs QTs and some AK AJ. I think you should raise.

I would just call the river, he could have AQ in the range, with Ax I would not expect from him rerise.

but I ALWAYS flat this at lower stakes

Usually i dont enter into disputes with other users but i completely disagree with this. "Always" is not the correct the logic on the poker table. Our game must be flexible. Both ranges depolarized or polarized have pros and cons. Wether to 3bet pol or depol is very villian dependent. If not applied well could have devastating consequences to our winrate. For example we can 3bet polarized versus a player who often folds to a 3bet but not only. If he folds often enough to a flop cbets in 3bet pots this makes him a good target for bluffing.

But if we play against a whale who loves to see flops and continue with a wide range of hands then it's way better to start 3betting him with depolarized range of hands and thin value betting him heavily, especially if we are deep with position. We cant bluff him or at least with not big of a frequency. Not to mention that players tend to like their hands much more in 3bet pots than in open raised. Thus we will win a lot more money with 3betting than flat calling

As for the hand.

3bet in position is fine against a LAG player.

On the flop i will check behind. I dont see much of a weaker hands that will call a cbet. You block a lot of broadway holdings QJ,QT,KJ. You might induce a bluff that way. So bet is questionable. Your hand is a bluffcatcher.

As played i will raise/fold river.

You have trips in a 3bet pot and he is repping such a narrow range so I would call here too. It's just a cooler.

Originally posted by NapoleonBonaparte135

but I ALWAYS flat this at lower stakes

Usually i dont enter into disputes with other users but i completely disagree with this. "Always" is not the correct the logic on the poker table. Our game must be flexible.

NapoleonBonaparte135 — you are quite correct, but in English words like "always" and "never" aren't necessarily absolutes.
Even when I "always" do something, there are a few times I might not. English doesn't really have a word for the concept of "except in rare situations". The best we have is "almost always" and that sounds lame to me — even though I almost always use it

Other languages do have such words.
I was once in a lineup behind a gentlemen at a hamburger place. He ordered a deluxe burger. The counter person asked, "Everything on it?"
He replied, "no '57 Chevy please"

I had a good laugh.