$2 NLHE Full Ring: All-check on flop, hit TPGK on turn

I had just sat down at the table and didn't have any hands on villain at the time.

How would you play this if
1) Villain was totally unknown?
2) Villain was an aggro-fish with 67/54/33,3/22,0 in VPIP/PFR/3B/AG stats over 49 hands?

All comments appreciated.

poker stars, $0.01/$0.02 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 9 Players

CO: $2.48 (124 bb)
Hero (BTN): $1.97 (98.5 bb)
SB: $2.09 (104.5 bb)
BB: $2 (100 bb)
UTG+1: $1.48 (74 bb)
UTG+2: $0.68 (34 bb)
MP1: $1.55 (77.5 bb)
MP2: $1.77 (88.5 bb)
MP3: $2.86 (143 bb)

Preflop: Hero is BTN with
5 folds, CO raises to $0.06, Hero calls $0.06, SB calls $0.05, BB folds

Flop: ($0.20) (3 players)
SB checks, CO checks, Hero checks

Turn: ($0.20) (3 players)
SB checks, CO bets $0.10, Hero raises to $0.39, SB folds, CO raises to $2.42 and is all-in, Hero folds

First, why not 3-bet preflop? Even if his raising range is tighter than normal from late position, a 3-bet with AQ on the button is definitely warranted in my opinion.

As played, I bet the flop. And if I had 3-bet and it was checked back to me, I C-bet that as well. On the turn, I probably call. Villain could be overvaluing an AX or small pair, or he could have you beat. I don't see his 3-bet all-in as very threatening unless he has AK. If he has 2-pair on turn he probably would have bet flop, same for flush draw.

At higher limits, or even lower limits with better hand histories, you might be able to fold. There are many situations when all you beat when calling is a bluff, but the bluff/overvalued hand frequency at this limit is high enough to call the all-in.

I would probably play both situations 1) and 2) the same if it's a $2NLHE table.

Stop telling people to auto 3-bet AQ with no reads. It shows you have no clue why you 3-bet. Plus the rest of your advice is generally terrible as we'll. you never mention ranges, or other things that show a solid thought process.

Fine play for me. Surely we are beat.

Why not 3bet preflop?

Vs. Villain 1 I'd fold turn as played, vs. Villain 2 probably a call.

I'd either 3-bet pre or bet flop vs. both probably.

c9h13no3 said:

Stop telling people to auto 3-bet AQ with no reads. It shows you have no clue why you 3-bet. Plus the rest of your advice is generally terrible as we'll. you never mention ranges, or other things that show a solid thought process.

Click to expand...

Enlighten me then, oh sage.

Simple explanation: AQ dominates AJ, AT, QJ, QT type hands that even bad TAGs generally fold to a 3-bet, especially when they're out of position. So when we 3-bet in the CO here, we're folding out that range we crush, and playing a flop with TT-QQ, AK. Same goes for KQ.

It's been discussed before by smarter people than you and I.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/56/medium-stakes-pl-nl/bad-habit-3-betting-range-choice-146036/

Apologies (somewhat) for the snark. I do want to know why you are advocating against a 3-bet here though.

Lol, good timing.

*Sorry, as I was writing this I kept changing my mind and looking at alternate viewpoints, so it may read as stream-of-consciousness in many places.*

You and that post you reference make excellent points that I strongly agree with. However, there is one major issue I disagree with. And that issue is the stakes we are talking about. $2 NLHE. Penny/2 Penny blinds. I find it incredulous that our 3-bet w/ AQ vs. an unknown is going to cause them to fold out enough to make the 3-bet less profitable than flat calling. Sure, there are good players at those tables, but the argument you are making is not for micro stakes games.

I mentioned in my first post on this thread that villain could well be overvaluing Ax or a small pair. Those kinds of mistakes occur at micro limits, especially full ring tables. And they occur frequently enough, I would argue, to capitalize on with a 3-bet.

However, I also see what I think you're getting at. If we just call, we conceal our hand strength. Then we take the lead when it's checked to us. But counter to that logic is that, even many micro players will C-bet which leaves us either to fold (which ultimately means playing AQ as a call-fold hand, a serious mistake I think), call (with a hand drawing to a only pair, maybe a straight on the right board such as this one), or raise (the best option as I see it, because you take the hand there or shut down if you get called, unless you hit). But even if you hit and catch a good pair, getting called on the flop raise means they very well could have your pair beat.

Ultimately (as of this post at least), I think I still see 3-bet as most profitable because you have position, you have a more straightforward play (too straightforward for upper games, but perfectly fine for micro), and a clearer outline of how to play the hand come the flop.

Might have to revisit this post in a week, see if I've gotten any more clarity on it.

2nl Does matter, sure, and I haven't played there in ages. But the bad TAGs at that level prolly fold too easily. They played very weak tight back in my day. And he raised only 3x, had 100+ bb's so I'd assume he's a bad TAG (tight passive).

Also, having position is an argument for calling, not 3-betting. The smaller the stack to pot ratio, the less position matters. You will also get more folds 3-betting IP, so it's harder to 3-bet AQ for value.

I'm certainly 3betting this. I'm also topping up but meh. As played I can't quite get what you're trying to do post flop but I likely just fold and move on.