Who hates this?

Opp. is 15.05/4.30/3.00 after 95 hands at the moment. Is there any merit to my line here?

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (10 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

SB ($108.55)
BB ($150.40)
UTG ($59.50)
UTG+1 ($17)
UTG+2 ($76.53)
MP1 ($101.10)<~~opponent
MP2 ($42.46)
MP3 ($57.40)
Hero ($169.55)
Button ($148.54)

Preflop: Hero is CO with Q, Q. SB posts a blind of $0.50.
UTG calls $1, 1 fold, UTG+2 calls $1, MP1 calls $1, 2 folds, Hero raises to $6.66, 3 folds, UTG folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls $5.66.

Flop: ($16.82) 5, 2, 4 (2 players)
MP1 checks, Hero checks.

Turn: ($16.82) Q (2 players)
MP1 bets $8

My thinking was that to call OOP knowing it would be HU and being a nit preflop he has to have a small pair here so checking behind would induce bluffs from hands I beat and I wouldn't fold anything I beat and I would keep the pot small to see a showdown if actually beaten. Obv. I'd bet the turn if checked to but I'm not afraid of overcards because he'd raise AK preflop and fold AQ to my raise preflop.

i dont slowplay overpairs with a draw heavy board. Or on any other type of board. You gotta bet that flop man. If he is the type of player you say he is hell let you know if he has a set, and hell pay you off with a smaller pair and maybe even overs. I really hate the way you played it tho imo

Ok. Let's count the cards that hur tyou:

ANY heart
any 3
any A or K

THat's ALOT of cards to be afraid of on that flop. You should bet there EVERYTIME. Why give them a free chance to beat you?

I don't like it even if you're 99% confident he won't have a flush draw because if he has a low pocket pair you're giving him another chance to hit a set, low pocket pairs sometimes call one cbet on the flop (well, prob not this one), and prob more important is the turn is likely to scare him even more instead of make him want to bluff. Maybe on like a J 7 2 rainbow flop, but I'd still usually bet that flop to be consistent with my cbets.

Originally Posted by ensign_lee

Ok. Let's count the cards that hur tyou:

ANY heart
any 3
any A or K

THat's ALOT of cards to be afraid of on that flop. You should bet there EVERYTIME. Why give them a free chance to beat you?

EXACTLY What I was thinking.

Originally Posted by benny999

Maybe on like a J 7 2 rainbow flop, but I'd still usually bet that flop to be consistent with my cbets.

I understand being consistent with my cbets but after raising 3 limpers this big I'm sure he thinks I have a big pair and can stack me if he hits.

i dont slowplay overpairs with a draw heavy board.

This is quite different from slowplaying, I have no intention of raising a later street unless I hit a set as I did this hand.

ANY heart
any 3
any A or K

I doubt they hurt me. A heart maybe but then I will just raise/fold the turn if he bets and give him bad odds to go for it since he has a flush draw here like 0% of the time.

So is there any other arguement here? I'm going to be stubborn about the heart/A/K. A 3 may hurt but only if he has 33 and he may not even bet that on the turn since I'm repping AQ/AK on the flop.

I agree with you that giving a free card here isn't as bad as a lot of people think. I actually take this line with overpairs/TPTK in some cases. But I don't think it's certain that Villain puts you on an overpair here. It's very possible that he calls a flop c-bet with a lower pair which he thinks is good. For pot control I would check behind on turn instead (obv. not this turn).

I think the biggest thing about this is if you check the flop, the hands you beat are more likely to be either more scared of a turn bet (ie the cards ensign lee listed + Q/K/A), or else hit a set and get you into the same trouble you are in if they flop it.

However on the flop, he might check/call with 33 and 66, and maybe 77-99. It's not a bad thing if he folds the missed pocket pairs. And like izybx wrote - he lets you know if he hit a set, ie check/raising the flop or turn. Maybe you can squeeze another $1 of ev by checking the flop behind from 77-99, but I don't think it's worth it.

Originally Posted by benny999

I think the biggest thing about this is if you check the flop, the hands you beat are more likely to be either more scared of a turn bet (ie the cards ensign lee listed + Q/K/A), or else hit a set and get you into the same trouble you are in if they flop it.

However on the flop, he might check/call with 33 and 66, and maybe 77-99. It's not a bad thing if he folds the missed pocket pairs. And like izybx wrote - he lets you know if he hit a set, ie check/raising the flop or turn. Maybe you can squeeze another $1 of ev by checking the flop behind from 77-99, but I don't think it's worth it.

I totally agree for pretty much the exact same reasons. There are just too many scare cards for both hero and villain to try and induce a bluff here.

Maybe with Aces or a set.

Don't listen to the people who tell you that you should always do the same thing in the same situation. It's OK to mix up your play (and necessary against people you against on a regular basis). That being said, bet this flop at least 95% of the time. I don't really like your reasoning for checking behind here because it makes it sound like checking behind is actually the better long-term play, which it isn't. The only reason you should ever be doing it is to confuse your opponents and not let them know that if you don't c-bet a draw-heavy board, it means you missed the flop.

Also, I doubt that this nit is a tough enough player for mixing it up to be worthwhile against him.

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Don't listen to the people who tell you that you should always do the same thing in the same situation. It's OK to mix up your play (and necessary against people you against on a regular basis). That being said, bet this flop at least 95% of the time. I don't really like your reasoning for checking behind here because it makes it sound like checking behind is actually the better long-term play, which it isn't. The only reason you should ever be doing it is to confuse your opponents and not let them know that if you don't c-bet a draw-heavy board, it means you missed the flop.

Also, I doubt that this nit is a tough enough player for mixing it up to be worthwhile against him.

I wasn't suggesting my line to be standard but mixing up my play a little bit. Maybe 50/50 or 25/75 leaning to betting. I think I get bet into lots of times after showing weakness on the flop with how aggro he is postflop, thought that could be a sample size issue.

izybx if I get c/r'ed I'm not sure it's easy to fold, I raise alot and I c-bet every flop HU.

FNord, what's the difference between QQ and AA in this spot?

Finally if I check I will give him a free card for his set. This is really fine because lots of times a player will not believe me and call the flop anyway and I will end up checking the turn often for pot control and call a river bet.

Originally Posted by NLHE lahooozaher

FNord, what's the difference between QQ and AA in this spot?

Lots of nits limp call AK in EP, we don't want to let them catch up for free. If you are 100% certain of your read that he'll raise AK and limp fold other aces/kings then QQ should play the same as AA. I might be wrong though, so I'll wait for the fnordmeister to elaborate.

If you have that read you can raise him with 72o+ every time he is the only limper.

And finally, when you say that you cbet every HU pot, if the villain is aware of this then you absolutely should cbet here because he won't believe you. A check behind is going to look very scary and will not generate action.

Originally Posted by NLHE lahooozaher

I c-bet every flop HU.

Then how exactly are you inducing a bluff by not c-betting this one?

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Originally Posted by NLHE lahooozaher

I c-bet every flop HU.

Then how exactly are you inducing a bluff by not c-betting this one?

I'm not sure he notices that part. I raise alot with position with multiple limpers but I often check behind if I get more than 1 caller, so it doesn't exactly look like I c-bet every flop.

If you have that read you can raise him with 72o+ every time he is the only limper.

I've thought about this but I usually puss out. I often raise the button here with tightish blinds with 45o though.

Dude, you really need to stop fearing monsters (just like in your other post in the SH forum when you had JJ and cbet flop and checked the turn on a draw heavy board for "pot control"). Sure it's possible he might have a set, but that does not mean you should check this flop. Also a nit is not the best player to induce a bluff from. The way to counter this type of player is not to turn into a scared nit postflop when you don't flop the nuts, but to loosen up and punish these limpers by raising with a wide range and not letting them play comfortably. If your opponents know that your range for the given pf action is AA/KK/QQ, then you become horribly exploitable, and the solution is not to go straight into pot-control mode when you don't flop a set. And if you know his range is only small pocket pairs, then HE becomes horribly exploitable, so use this to your advantage.

I am being straight up with you here, because at higher limits this type of scared play will get you run over by the better players.

I think taking this line is a line that is scared of getting beat with an already better hand. Rather than checking here, try checking the turn on any card. That would look like a missed AK more than anything else, which would enduce bets by floaters either here or on the next street.

You absoloutely most bet the flop. In position with a limp caller and he checks to you on a connected/suited but somehwat ragged flop. IF he smoothcalsl the flop you can reevaluate the turn(which sucked back out on all set farmers; still behind the made straights but you are ahead of the rest no less).

I personally like a bet on the flop and if he calls my reads will be the key as to whether or not I bet the turn.

As played I call the turn; if he is somewhat tight/scared/passive I may be induced to raise the turn as a semi-bluff if villain is betting out a PP.