TBH I don't know that the flop cbet was mandatory, or even optimal.  In general, I think people cbet too frequently (90%+), when cbet frequency should only really be around 80%.  The reason why I say 80% specifically is because if you didn't start off with a pair,  you will hit the flop 32% of the time.  So if you're cbetting 82% of the time, it really keeps your opponent guessing as to whether you hit or not.  If you cbet 100% of the time then people will start floating you too frequently or check-raising you on the flop with air just to see where you are at.  This approach has merit btw bc if you are playing someone who will cbet 100% regardless of what he has but will fold to a raise then if you check-raise him he will be folding the majority of the time.  I don't know what your cbet frequency is, but judging purely off your opponent's actions, I wouldn't be surprised if he was responding to your presumably hight cbet frequency.

Flops like these are ones that I generally like to check.  People are more likely to defend their blinds with an ace than any other card.  Two Aces on board makes that less likely; however, I think there is a real possibility that your opponent has a naked ace here.  For me, pot control is really the name of the game with a polarized board like this.  Once your opponent raises his range is particularly polarized.  Either your opponent has air or trips.  I don't think he raises with a 6 or any other pair.  Presumably if he had 10/10+ he would have 3 bet pre.  For him to flat pre but 3 bet here, is a really bizarre line to take with 10/10+ and I just don't think your opponent has that.  Additionally, your opponent was described a call station so I think that discounts the possibility that your opponent is bluffing here.  He could possibly be on a flush draw, but if he is a call station, I don't know that he is semi-bluffing a paired board.  That's not really a line call stations make.  He almost certainly has an ace in his hand.

Once he raises, you could flat hoping to bink a 9, and take his stack with a full house (so long as he doesn't have A-9 specifically).  You don't really have the implied odds to do so, but that's one line you could take.  It also allows you to revaluate the turn.  So I don't particularly mind the call on the flop and the check to your opponent on the turn. 

Killingbird said:

My thought on flop is pretty straightforward.  Im cbetting because i think i almost always have the best hand, and I call his raise because I think he would flat the cbet with an A in position to let me barrell again on the turn. Why would he want to blow me off my hand with what is a pretty big raise?  Or even just click it back to give me more room to spew?

 

Thoughts on turn and river forthcoming after more discussion….

Yeah I think 90% of players would cbet on the flop.  I can only speak for myself and that I don't like cbetting on flops where my opponent has a polarized range.  Idk if your opponent can call with worse and he could have you crushed.  It could just be me, but I've tracked this, and I generally lose money when c-betting on flops containing an Ace where I have a pocket pair lower than that.  Aces tend to freeze the action in the sense that your opponent is more likely to be calling with an ace than any other card and if he doesn't have an ace he is probably afraid of it.  Therefore, I don't think he's calling with worse, maybe not even with a 6.

I think players often get into trouble when they put their opponents on a higher thinking level than they are actually on.  Maybe a good player would flat the cbet in order to slow play.  On the other hand, flatting the cbet in a lot of ways looks stronger than reraising, so maybe he would reraise with an Ace hoping that you perceive that to be a steal attempt, which apparently you did.  For me, because I'm fairly aggressive I know that my opponents put me on very strong hand when I flat a flop like this, probably an Ace or 66 specifically.  Because I bet as a bluff, I probably have to bet when I have it too, in order to have balanced lines.  There is also some chance that he bets with an Ace here in order to not give a free draw to a possible flush.  I think there are a lot of opponents who would reraise with an Ace here, some of them because they are level 1 thinkers and the thought process is simply “I have an Ace, omg what a flop, I have to bet!” and some of them because calling looks too suspicious.

That said, I understand your thought process.  There is certainly some chance that your opponent is bluffing and if you can call all the way down to showdown with 99 here, you have more stones than I do. 

For me, particularly on the bubble, this is just a check/call on the flop.  If he continues on the turn and I don't improve I probably fold and try to money.  I can make it up on another hand, I don't want to get too involved here with just 99. 

One thing that I got from your original post, but maybe I'm reading too much into this, is that you described Villian as “stationy”.  To me when a call station reraises on the flop that is a genuine indication of strength.  Call stations tend to call with anything but raise only with super premiums.  The other posters seem to think that his calling ways is only pre.  That's why it's so difficult to make comments without actually having sat there at the table.  Of course, it depends entirely on the opponent's tendencies.  But generally I don't see it being very likely 99 is good here. 

The other thing that people have skirted but not addressed directly is how terrible your reverse implied odds are on the flop.  If you are behind, you are crushed.  If you are ahead, you have to have the stones to not only call the flop raise but 2 streets of value.  I can see some merit in calling the flop trying to bink a monster, and reevaluating on turn if we miss, but I prefer not to play like that.  If I call flop, I'm basically committing myself to call two streets of value, as I really hate to call flop/turn and fold river.  Due to the fact that I only have 2 outs to improve and I'm committing to two more streets if I call on the flop, I'm just letting it go.

Also, no one has really addressed metagame principles.  You don't have to win every pot, especially if you had been crushing the table.  It's ok to let one go every once in a while.  Even if he did take this one away from you, if you fold on the flop you've truly lost the minimum: a small raise pre and a small cbet.  I'd rather do that then guess for multiple streets with terrible reverse implied odds in what is now a huge pot with a mediocre holding.    

 I agree with all of your points.  99 goes from the top of your range down to the bottom of your range as you continue and subsequent bets from your opponent do reduce the likelihood that your opponent is bluffing.  However, many opponents will continue to barrell if they were bluffing on the flop.  Most importantly, your opponent is not increasing his raises on the turn and river in accordance with the size of the pot.  As the pot grows so do your odds for calling.  If I am doing the math correctly, on the river Villian bets 9K into a 22,300 pot, creating a 31,300 pot.  Given your now more than 3:1 odds, you have to call if you think there's a decent chance your opponent was bluffing.  If you were willing to call on the flop with that premise, I have to believe that you would call on the river as well, now that the odds are even more favorable. 

 

Calling the flop and turn then folding river is the absolute worst possible line to take.  You have to have a good idea on the flop about what you're going to do on future streets.  If you are calling the flop, it is with the premise that your opponent is bluffing, and you plan on calling turn/river as well unless scare cards hit.  Although this decision is flexible, as flexibility is key in poker, nothing came on the turn/river that would cause me to alter my line.  If you weren't planning on calling the river, then why call on the flop and turn?  If you accept this then it goes back to my original point.  I'm not sure I want to be in a position where I call on the turn/river; therefore, I would possible fold on the flop.  I wouldn't fold on the flop bc I thought I had the worse hand, I would fold due to the terrible reverse implied odds being offered, and the fact that I don't necessarily want to call off two more barrells.  If you are calling the flop just to see if your opponent will continue, you are basically crossing your fingers hoping and praying that it doesn't get too expensive, and you can have a cheap showdown.  That's just not a position I want to put myself in.  If, however, I have picked up that my opponent is bluffing I will call turn/river.  The only line that I won't personally take is call flop/turn, then fold river.   

@Foucault, all that I'm really saying is that are two lines I would take once I bet the flop, and my choice is dependent upon my read, my opponent, the metagame, and gameflow.  The two lines I would take are folding the flop or calling all the way down.  You and others are advocating a call the flop and then see what develops on the turn/river line.  To me that is simply spew.  Bluffs are in your opponent's range, and any competent opponent if bluffing will continue to represent a big hand on every street, which is why I hate calling flop/turn and folding river.  What I don't understand is why you have an emphatic willingness to call flop but then fold on the river?  To me that line is basically just calling flop then praying your opponent doesn't bet.  But if any competent opponent is going to continue to bluff then you need to continue to bluff catch. 

As for why I might fold the flop once I'm reraised?  Its simple.  If I'm doing well facing little resistance then suddenly I'm facing resistance that tells me something, either my opponent has a big hand, or he has finally decided to take a stand.  In a tournament sometimes it is ok to “let this one go and wait for a better spot”.  If your opponent is reraising the flop you have to reason that you will be facing 2 more streets of value, possibly big bets, in what is a sticky situation you can make the conservative play.  Ultimately, I believe I can fold here and make it up elsewhere if I believe I do have a significant advantage over my opponents in skill and chip count.  In tournaments, sometimes it is ok to take -EV lines in one hand in order to set up a more profitable spot later; by the same token sometimes it is ok to give up +EV in risky spots where you could potentially lose a lot of chips, particularly if the table has proven that you can make even more +EV later.  I don't really know anything about the table mechanics of his table so I can't make an inference, all I can say is that SOMETIMES I would fold the flop.  Sometimes I wouldn't.  With poker, everything is always dependent on the situation.       

johnnyballer1 said:

Ok maybe sicko is the wrong word. The “sicko” play to me isnt raising with air, its betting the turn so small if he has air, and betting the river so small when he has air. When hero calls a 3x raise on the flop, he is interested in the pot, so if he has kk or qq, a 4k bet on the turn and 9k bet on the river are so small he will never fold to them. So if he is has air and sees a guy call the raise, valuing the turn and river to try and get a fold to me is difficult. What is hero calling the raise with and folding to a 4k bet on the turn? and 9k on the river? only hands would be 99 or 88 or 77. kq gets there, any j or 10 has showdown value.

I agree with you except with the caveat that you have to be careful with this line of reasoning.  Some players will bluff small and value bet big, which is the opposite of what most players do.  They reason if I have a big hand, I'm going to bet it big.  If I am bluffing, I can perhaps get my opponent to fold to a big raise, but maybe a little one will work as well.  These players can actually be more difficult to read as what looks like a clear value bet is actually a cheap attempt at a bluff.  Really you have to pay close attention to bet sizing tells and then just guess.