Would be helpful to know your hand. But it sounds like a small pair of some sort, either pocket or you paired the 5. I can see checking 22 or 44, but otherwise I think you should bet (and also 3bet larger). Any small pair that you flopped will have trouble playing future streets because there are so many overcards that can come. Think of it as a thin value/protection bet. I think you're overestimating how often you get check-raised here. My checking range is more likely to consist of the biggest pocket pairs, the biggest unpaired cards, and sets/two pair (if I had those for some reason).

Have you seen my range construction series? Goes over how to handle a pure bluff-catcher on the river.

I don't like 3betting 22 at all. It seems like the only reason you're doing it is to set up a c-bet (you can't be ahead of his calling range, and you don't want to get 4-bet, and he probably never folds pre, so what else is there?). The thing is that when V folds to your c-bet, you usually have the best hand anyway, and when he doesn't, you're drawing to 2 outs, plus you get bluffed by draws, etc. Like, as we see here, you (wisely) choose not to c-bet the flop. Unimproved pocket pairs are about the worst cbetting hands there are, so you really shouldn't be building your strategy around doing that.

jacobsharktank said:

Foucault said:

The thing is that when V folds to your c-bet, you usually have the best hand anyway, and when he doesn't, you're drawing to 2 outs, plus you get bluffed by draws, etc.

 

I'm not sure I understand this part exactly, like maybe I'm putting too much weight elsewhere. If I cbet 40%, villain has to defend around 71.4% of the time. If he defends his range only 45% of the time, my expected value is .55(1.4)- .4 =  .37. Did I do this correctly? If I have 22 and bet 40%, there are probably hands I beat that should still continue but don't. That's a separate point though, as I can and should split my flop range up. 

 

It's actually more complicated than that, because checking back does not have 0EV for you. For betting to be correct, it must be better than checking, not just better than 0EV. So even if you make money by betting relative to open folding (your EV option), that doesn't make it correct or the best play.

Foucault said:

 

It’s actually more complicated than that, because checking back does not have 0EV for you. For betting to be correct, it must be better than checking, not just better than 0EV. So even if you make money by betting relative to open folding (your EV option), that doesn’t make it correct or the best play.

Could you explain how to calculate/know/guess the ev of checking back? I’m imagining it’s our equity vs the villain’s range if they’re typically passive and never bluff, + a premium for us having position. If they’re not passive, I don’t know how to do it. In this case, I induced a bluff from villain on two streets. If I don’t plan to fold, and guess he’ll bluff two streets half the time, and then like 20% of the time its a value bet, I’d run all of that out with guessed bet sizes and the pot size now? Seems like a lot of variables.

You’re right there are a lot of variables, involved, I didn’t say it was easy! But yeah, that’s the basic idea. I think you have to fold to bets on most turns, though, this is a rare run-out where you can call down.