strong 2nd pairs and cbetting

Were in position vs a nit and we are the pf aggressor. AK7r flop and we have KJ. Villain is something like 17/11/3. Cbet or check and let villain draw to 4 outs at the most.

Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz

Were in position vs a nit and we are the pf aggressor. AK7r flop and we have KJ. Villain is something like 17/11/3. Cbet or check and let villain draw to 4 outs at the most.

If this is me, I bet here unless I'm fairly sure I can get a worse hand to bet at me by checking.

b/f

You can mix in a check on this flop every once in a while looking to get a bet out of a pair lower than kings.

But this can get you into a tough spot sometimes if villain fires turn and river after youve shown weakness.

anyone think that we only get called by hands that beat us if we do cbet? so what is it accomplishing. i don't see a lot of people doubling turn and river with air here much, and if they do we just adjust our calling range.

Standard check for me. If he fires the turn and river so be it, the pot wont be very large unless he overbets. I don't mind getting one street of value with hands like these, or two if hes the kind of regular who will call you down light.

Doesn't villain's AF of 3 suggest he would have bet out if he has a hand that beats us?

Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz

anyone think that we only get called by hands that beat us if we do cbet? so what is it accomplishing. i don't see a lot of people doubling turn and river with air here much, and if they do we just adjust our calling range.

yeah these flops are pretty bad for us. I think it depends on villain though. Obv. if their range consists of floating or calling with PP or some shit then yeah easy bet. Overall it's best to prob. check vs. an unknown and in your hand KQ is prob. the only hand that beats us that calls. If you are against villains who you have history with I cbet it anyways to balance my cbetting range even more. It's just too transparent vs. thinking players.

Originally Posted by deacon_bluez

Doesn't villain's AF of 3 suggest he would have bet out if he has a hand that beats us?

Not at all. AF and leading flops are not tightly correlated, it could be possible but by my definition of him being a nit he doesn't.

Originally Posted by kmind

If you are against villains who you have history with I cbet it anyways to balance my cbetting range even more. It's just too transparent vs. thinking players.

I am not sure this is entirely true. I know I am sounding stubborn as hell but I really want to initiate some discussion about this. Me and Bode recently discussed this. When talking about c-bet ranges and balance we need to check some flops behind. Whats wrong with checking these flops behind and why does it leave our range unbalanced? We are still going to be betting a lot of mid pairs, and top pairs and checking behind SD value hands against aggro opponenets that can check raise.

I do not see this enormously balancing our cbet range since this type of flop does not come up that often. So whats the advantage of a bet here? What does it accomplish? To me it seems like it just bloats the pot unnecessarily with a decent hand but vs a nits calling range we are likely behind.

Nit says check

Well I mean in general I think cbetting a polarized range is great. I think we can check this hands as long as we check other flops sometimes when we have air/monster as well. So I guess checking is ok, as long as our checking range isn't all mediocre hands.