5$ sngo - Flop advice.

[Litellio]

This guy is running 14/8/1.3. C-betting for value feels like a dumb bet, because he doesn't call with worse (I don't think), but it's close between betting and checking behind, because I don't want to turn 66 into a bluff when it doesn't need to be, when my image on the table is quite tight.

Anyway, thoughts?

[aamir6433]

His stack is pretty small too. A check is your best option here.

[The Incompetent-Donkey]

I would say if you had better runner runner chances make a committing bet and hope he folds, but as it is probably check and hope to spike a 6.

[bizkit]

This particular opponent I'm probably checking down. It looks like his aggression is low and as long this coincides with his AFq its probably better than CBet'ing. Although the CBet has a few advantages as it could potentially fold out a few hands we're behind like 88 or 77. There's also a few holdings they could call behind with as well. Some type of flush draw or even lower pocket pair if they were a calling station postflop(probably unlikely). It also keeps you from being bluff'd out on a later street although this opponent seems a lot less likely to fire.

With the checkdown you could execute the Phil Hellmuth tiny bet turn play(minbet or something likely to be less than 1/4th the pot). I'd like to have a slightly better hand like 88 or 77 so it induces more tiny pocket pairs to call. But, it's mainly to deter a passive opponent from taking a shot on the river as they will be more likely to check to the better.

[JustPlayPoker]

First I have to say that I don't really like the UTG raise w/66. That's a stealing hand in my book and I'd only raise UTG for value.

However once the deed is done and the villain calls and checks, I'm putting in a C-bet 100% of the time against a nit and calling if he shoves over in case he's on the FD or a stone bluff.

Betting gives us a chance to increase our stack and if we have to go all-in, it doesn't hurt us much. Plus it'll make other opponents less likely to bluff at you if they see you call with a substandard hand.

Bet it baby!

[Litellio]

First I have to say that I don't really like the UTG raise w/66. That's a stealing hand in my book and I'd only raise UTG for value.

Fair. Point taken.

However once the deed is done and the villain calls and checks, I'm putting in a C-bet 100% of the time against a nit and calling if he shoves over in case he's on the FD or a stone bluff.

Who c/raises here with no fold equity w/ flush draw or as a bluff?

With the checkdown you could execute the Phil Hellmuth tiny bet turn play(minbet or something likely to be less than 1/4th the pot). I'd like to have a slightly better hand like 88 or 77 so it induces more tiny pocket pairs to call. But, it's mainly to deter a passive opponent from taking a shot on the river as they will be more likely to check to the better.

Yeah I like it. I fired on the flop, then as soon as I did I thought why the hell did I c-bet. Luckily he folded and the hand wasn't particularly key, but I felt like I should put it on here.

Thanks for all the replies.

[Pates]

Stack size is important here. We have to assume he knows he is short. No matter how much you bet, he will either shove or fold with a better or worse hand. Personally I bet out ~400 knowing that if he check shoves I fold with my 2 outs. It's unlikely he's check shoving a hand you have beat or even a hand like 77/88. The reason this (imo) is a good spot to c-bet is because we can c-bet a small amount with the same effect of betting a large amount.

@JustPlay 6 handed I'm almost never going to limp or fold 66 UTG so the only option really is to raise. FR is a completely different situation but as it is short handed, 66 is a very strong hand.

[aamir6433]

Stack size is important here. We have to assume he knows he is short. No matter how much you bet, he will either shove or fold with a better or worse hand. Personally I bet out ~400 knowing that if he check shoves I fold with my 2 outs. It's unlikely he's check shoving a hand you have beat or even a hand like 77/88. The reason this (imo) is a good spot to c-bet is because we can c-bet a small amount with the same effect of betting a large amount.

Bet 400, then if he shoves for 600 more for you to call into a pot of 2k, you can say goodbye to the tight, credible image you've established when you fold. During the point in the sng when it's going to be most vital too.

IMO, you gotta check here. I don't see the risk justifying the reward - you've got a good stack and you taking this pot down just isn't that essential. Forget a c-bet folding out 77/88 etc. with his stack and oop he doesn't play those hands this way, he gets them in pre, but this is exactly how he would play an middle ace against you.

If we think ahead to the turn, his only way of stealing the pot there would be basically to put his whole tournament life on the line. So i think you can safely assume if he's hasn't got an ace or better he'll check down to showdown without you putting any more of your stack or image at risk, and you can still rake it in if he's got KQ or thereabouts.

[bridgey321]

I agree with pates, if we bet 400 he would not shove with air as it wouldn't appear he has any fold equity. We can easily represent the A here by betting out, if he hasn't got one he is going to be snap folding. If he moves in we know he must have it and can easily fold despite getting like 4 to 1 we are only 8%. This is always a dodgey spot though.

Oh and table image!? Little is probs playing $5-$10 here; no one pays attention.

[JustPlayPoker]

I find it interesting that everyone is saying that the villain has no fold equity, but that they'd fold to a c/r all-in. If you'd fold, the villain has fold equity.

@Platefish 66 may be solid in an all-in preflop situation, but it's dodgey for post-flop play (this hand is a case in point). Small pocket pairs are speculative and they're no good in early position at this stage of a tourney. They'll cost you chips in the long run.