This is a discussion on $400 NLHE 6-max: KQo Turning Second pair within the online poker forums, in the Cash Game Hand Analysis section; Hand History driven straight to this forum with DriveHUD Poker HUD and Database Software
HERO ($1628) [VPIP: 23.8% | PFR: 11.8% | AGG: 23.2% |
They are both super deeps, you are IP and they have a chance to face each other in this hand. I guess in preflop you were looking for an induction of increase, since the blind position blocks the cold call factor that this villain has.
On the flop I think you chose an appropriate cbet size (57%). At this time we charge the value of some low and medium scale semi bluffs. As for example 5-4; 7-5; 9-7. We have a relevant blocker, but that shouldn't be a reason enough reason to extract more value here. Since the V did not increase in preflop. So we also do not want to add more implicit in their favor.
On the turn you are representing a medium value range, and I'm not sure if you expected high fold equity from this villain. But this scenario is unlikely given that we still face unlimited range and the investments made were very low. Also the texture of this board negatively impacts V rank and any other turn barrel of big size, you will only receive balanced calls. On the river the 4h is a bad street for our range, so any bet is neutral, because now even the pure bluff combos beat us, because they could easily choose an offensive line x / r. We only wait for a free showdown and recommended is the b/f line here.
Turn sizing doesn't make sense to me. What hand do we bet this sizing with for value? We are giving the flush draw an sweet price to hit. Given our small turn and river sizing MAYBE we can get value from smaller Kx here but generally a triple barrel isn't getting called down on an Ace high board with second pair 3rd kicker or worse in my experience. If the guy is a calling station include reads in OP. I think I would bet / bet / check with normal sizing or bet / check / eval since we pick up show down value on the turn. Trying to get 3 streets seems ambitious here.