Joe Nelligan

So not to troll but about your general philosophy of erring on the nitty side when you are not sure what strategy your opponent is playing in order to lower variance, i do think there are some valid points on the counter argument. I tend to agree with you especially if you are at all shot taking in a game or your confidence is a little lower than usual (be it from a down swing or being unsure of the skill level of your competition or w/e) but something I have given a decent amount of thought to is the idea of adding break even hands into a range assuming you are very well rolled and have a high confidence in your edge in a particular game.  Theoretically if you had a proper range for a given action (whether it be a 3 bet, 4 bet or just a plain old open raise) and could add some outside subset combination of hands to that range which in a vacuum over an infinite amount of hands (obviously impossible to tell) could break exactly even, wouldn't that add value to your new overall range because it makes you tougher to play against and gets you less credit for the times you actually have value hands? I do think that it depends on the action because if you could magically prove that adding 73 suited to a cold 5 betting range would somehow break even (obviously it pretty much never would) then it'd be awesome because the vast majority of your cold 5 bets will be value hands so adding a break even bluff adds value to your range for the times you have AA is great while possibly adding break even hand to a button raising range in a spot where you are not getting much credit for having a hand anyway might not do anything but increase variance or lose you value if they are over bluffing against your range.

~10.5 mins in on the top right we 3 bet KK vs a 50 BB stack. I was curious if your 3 bet sizing was any different because he is half stacking. Against a full stack when OOP Id be 3 betting to between 3.5 and 4X against a 2.5X but because he was at 50 BBs Id probably not go bigger than 3X since but its obviously not a huge deal.   

I really don't know if I agree with the river shove, it seemed like you thought his range was very draw heavy on the turn and I would typically give him another chance to bluff on the river when we elect to check turn. I mean what hands are we targeting to get called ? pocket pairs, A high ? He certainly wouldn't need to be bluffing that high a percentage of his draw combos for a check to outperform a bet IMO. Unless you had a read that he was unlikely to bluff or a station in some spots and it was an exploitative adjustment, but in a vacuum i prefer a river check

I am probably calling once here. I think V 1 slows down on turn with all non Q hands and given the description I would suspect her standard to be to check a Q on the flop here. She very well may have a worse pocket pair and be betting to see where she is, V2 can obviously have some Qs (might actually be more likely to have a Q given descriptions) but unless I picked up something from either of them being particularly strong I'm seeing one more card here. If you are folding here then your continuing range is exclusively Qx and 44 (and the 44 and most of the Qx's you don't have pre flop. I'm not suggesting live 1/2 players are exploiting ranges but keeping AA,KK in your range here given we are getting 3-1 seems like something worth doing. 

In the Q9 hand would you be getting to the river as played with JJ and 1010 ever? Seems like a semi credible line to be taking on flop and turn, you are kind of setting yourself up to get bluffed a lot on the river but I wouldn't suspect that too many NL 200 villains are blasting 3 streets too often when they are not the pfr (though thats really just a blind assumption on my part). If we do get to the river with JJ,1010 then wouldn't you agree that they are the best c/r bluff candidates considering they further block straights and give villain more combos of AQ which is at least somewhat likely to bet/fold river?

I really enjoyed this video format and would really enjoy if this series continued as well as possibly doing more series like this in the future whenever there is footage of RIO pros in the live poker setting.

In the AK hand, did you worry about the possibility of him having combos of 45s in his range. It is only 4 combo's and there are potentially very good reasons to discount them. If you did completely rule out 45s combos was it because of the EP 3X, him being relatively short, him potentially fast playing the flop as a semi bluff or all of the above? I know it is only 4 combos but especially in spots where I'm considering lining up a 3 barrel bluff whether or not villain can have the actual nuts weighs pretty heavy in my mind, maybe even more than it should. 

very interesting video, well done. 

As for the homework hand. I think I like it as played. 

Flop- I mean my first instinct was to check back this flop too but I think there is a case to be made for a bet/fold. It kind of feels like it sucks to bet/fold a pair when pf ranges are so wide but what is the range that he is check raising us with. Maybe strong Js, 2 pair, a straight and his flush draws if that's his range then I like a b/f but if like you said he's just adding hands like A10 or As8x or too much other stuff it obviously becomes less attractive. When I am in villains spot facing a smallish bet (I think I usually go on the smaller side of things which is also debatable) I am usually thinking the cbettor is polarized into being happy to bet/call and having very low equity and just trying 1 stab knowing the BBs range is very wide so i'm not expecting a huge cbetting frequency so I'm probably not looking to expand my c/r range too much but that's just me maybe not the trend of others. I think checking back gets us bluffed a decent amount of the time and since I think he's likely checking all or most of his flush draw combo's there is some risk of reverse implied odds with the 7s or 6s on turn or river. Ultimately the reason I decided i like checking back a little more is that there really aren't THAT many hands that have more than 3 outs against our actual hand that are all that likely to be check folding and that's pretty relevant since if we are betting we are betting to get protection and maybe some very small amount of value if he has a float heavy strategy. The only hands he is like 100% to be bet/folding to 1 bet are his small pocket pairs which have 1 or 2 outs and aren't great hands to turn into a bluff. 

Turn is tough spot. I don't have too much to say about it other than I think it is fairly close between folding and calling and I can't say I'd blame you for either. 

River I like but Im not doing jumping jacks about. He should definitely be capped since i don't think checking a flush or an 8 makes too much sense, we don't block any spades or any of the high gutters which isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, and this is pretty much the bottom of our range. The only thing Id say is despite being capped I think most people realize they are capped in this type of spot pretty often and it really wouldn't shock me if there was a hero call against us. 

I'm a little interested to see that you are still happy with the K9s fold at the 19:15 mark. I am not disagreeing that we are behind or even crushed by his range but if we work on the assumption that his entire range is AdKo (obviously it's never just AdKo but just for arguments sake) which is the 3rd worst hand he could possibly have against our actual hand (and we block some combo's of KK) we are still getting the correct price at 2.964 to 1. Now I can see that if you think his range is entirely AA, KK, and AK why K9s would not have the right price and would have reverse implied odds on making the call. Literally just by adding QQ you make it close enough that on hot and cold equities you are not getting the right price by 1.8%. If you are 50 BBs deep in a high leverage tournament situation against a player you tagged as weak where you are in position I feel as if you should be able to fairly easily make up the 1.8% range disadvantage with superior post flop decisions. So the only argument I could really get my head around at this time is that you think that by using such a small sizing his range is exclusively AA,KK and AK and has QQ in it almost never and if that is the case I think you should have mention in your analysis that you think villain only has 2.11% of hands with their exact sizing. 

Loved the video Jason really good content. Really glad to see some MTT content as I'm gearing up for my first wsop playing some bracelet events, upgraded to elite for just these kind of videos. 

19:15 you r/f k9s to a weak/tight players very small 3bet when you are 50 BBs deep the hand after he doubled. I usually find a call in this spot here for a few reasons. 1) *and most important* we are getting over 3:1 against a bad player in position deep enough that we can really utilize our positional advantage 2) the hand you had just saw him play with a set of 9s is pretty important, because if he is going to play that straight forward with his monsters then we can abuse him like crazy and his bluffs (if he has them) may be just as transparent 3) he is a weak/tight player who literally 1 hand before just doubled from 25 to 50 BBs deep in what is possibly (i supposed you could quickly look him up to find out) a huge tournament for him (maybe life changing in his eyes) he could be very reluctant to stack off at all marginally (or what he considers marginally) potentially giving us a little (or a lot) more fold equity than we deserve on our bluffs and semi bluffs. What do you think/ what would your counter argument be?   are you continuing with hands like 76s or 89s that are in your opening range? 

33:20 the big AQ flip that you lost to 55. I was a little surprised to see you just 4bet jamming for 30 BBs effective. I assume, please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are splitting your range in this spot so that you do have a small 4 betting range which includes bluffs and AA-QQ and possibly AK (i actually think it's a pretty interesting question as to which subsection of your range to put AK into but that's even more of a tangent than I am already on) I typically just play my whole get it in range one way, especially since i think you said villain was a reg, on shorter stacks I just include AA and KK in my 4 bet shove range and once I get to the high 20 to low 30 BB mark I just 4bet small/call even the weakest get it in hand I have (prob standardly 99 and AQ but could be slightly wider with a dynamic in place).  What is your thoughts on splitting ranges on these stacks vs not doing that? 

Thanks again for the great video

At min 21 with the Q8 river spot OOP. I get that you have to bet small here but less than 1/5 pot seems too small. I mean I get it if you think your opponent with interpret it as a blocking bet on your part and potentially turn something into a bluff but it seemed like you were just trying to get called by an overpair or a 6 and to me betting like 2100 on river might not get looked up quite as often but I don't think it gets over 2 times the amount of folds that your 890 gets so wouldn't that sizing be better? 

22:52 in the high roller looked like a good spot for a light cold 4bet shove. Somni open CO Rice 3 betts button you have A7o and 25 BBs.  Rice was 3betting the button, in a spot where CO is probably opening fairly wide, they are 67 BBs deep and rice can leverage ICM post flop because it is fairly significant if somni busts his 270k stack while there is still a 100k stack on the table and as a reg he would know that.  I mean he'll be getting an ok price and he is definitely aware of his own image but I don't think he can just 3bet/call A10 happily and if he is 3bet/folding a hand as strong as AJo than I'd say it's almost a must jam spot. Where do you think his calling range begins?

~33 mins on the bottom right. We raise/call UTG with QQ which seems reasonable given the relative tightness of both ranges. I get cbetting the flop small and eking out value and some protection by betting the turn on 6 7 10 4 (you didn't bet the turn but said you wish you had) but I was really surprised when you said there were run outs  (I'm assuming a decent % of them) where you would try to get  3 streets of value. I know you didn't want to discuss pre flop that much but to me there is a disconnect between the range you put him on pre and post if you are going for 3 streets here. Basically if I think someone has enough worse 1 pairs in their range by the river that I'm going for 3 streets of value then I am pretty happy 4-bet calling pre flop. Was the main reason you wish you had gone for 3 streets you discounting AA-KK because of the check-call flop? By the same token I don't think AK almost ever check/calls 3 streets unimproved on this board so even if you get to discount AA/KK that is offset to me by not getting any value from AK (which makes up a pretty big % of the tight range we put him on pre) arguing for a check back on almost all rivers.   

I do get the desire to raise once he donks actual river small because all we are probably losing to is 1010 which he might not even have pre in his range. 

I really enjoyed this video. I am a NLH player trying to learn PLO I have maybe 40 hours live experience and I am fairly confident that I am terrible. This video format that you can play as tight as one style or as loose as another style is extremely helpful. For me I could see myself sitting in a low stake live game where it is pretty clear almost immediately who the guys who know what they are doing are and who the live players who have absolutely no clue are, so Id probably be more towards the tight style against the players better than myself (though probably not quite as tight, I play a loose NLH game and just don't know that I could fold the QQTs8s from the blinds or some of the tighter button folds to opens you made) and play a wider range of hands a more LAGy post flop game against the weaker players. 

I do have a couple of beginner questions. 

1) Do you think my above reasoning is a good idea assuming that I can correctly identify the player skill levels (Im pretty confident I can) or do you think it is better to come up with my own game that gives me a more solid theoretical game as opposed to the exploitative approach I outlined. 

2) This is kind of just a curiosity question. I see a lot of video producers, yourself included, who are in spot where they advocate betting, whether it is a cbet of a donk, on the bigger size for a given board. In these spots to bet big they usually aren't potting, especially on the flop they are like 90-95% potting. Is this just a it doesn't really matter whether you bet full pot or 95% pot type thing or is it to set up stack sizes correctly etc? Basically I'm curious is there a reason to not be mashing the pot button in a situation you advocate betting big?

3) In the hand 43:50 where you flatted AA23 with A high hearts I was really surprised . I mean to a new player like myself a spot to squeeze with Aces with a suit and some straight potential against 3 players is like exactly what you are waiting for even if they are going to put you on Aces most of the time. You'll have hearts dominated, you'll actually hit some low flops that they are not expecting you to have better than AA on and given the raise and 2 calls you can actually get a good enough amount in preflop that even if you get 3 callers,  there are enough boards that stacking off on is good that we should be taking this spot. If my inclination is incorrect which it very well may be, where is the line for hands that a new player implementing a tight strategy should be squeezing here? 

Wow A+     I think I'm going to buy this program and start playing around with it. Seems invaluable to experiment with spots to protect your range. 

On the 88 hand, do you ever consider 3betting this pre given the bubble dynamic? Sometimes I wonder if the fact that it sucks if he 4 bets is really enough of a reason to not 3 bet. You said that Berkee was playing more straight forward with a big stack so if he opens then it makes 88 an easy just call, but if you really think villain is abusing the bubble and opening something like 80% when folded to in late position than it's hard to believe that 3betting isn't going to be immediately profitable. It's not even like you are really messing with him here you are just raising a hand that is way ahead of his range, if you and him didn't have a really combative dynamic I'd expect people to give you credit the first time and if they are going to continue to do so with a call much more often than a 4bet. 

Great video Nick and congrats on the promotion, 

The entire process you went through and detailed is extremely valuable, I personally don't have all the same programs as I live in the US not in an area with regulated online poker but I believe the process is still valid, writing out ranges and breaking them down into the categories based on assumptions of what villain will do with specific portions of their range can really open your eyes about the validity of different options available to us. For example doing this I set out to find if I have a profitable hero call and maybe given certain assumptions and maybe find out that turning a hand into a bluff is more profitable or it is just a boring old fold. 

On to this specific instance, I agreed with pretty much all of the assumptions that you outlined and everything seemed reasonable and correct (though I will prob watch the video again later to think it through again). The one thing you didn't mention is one of the biggest factors for me when I am in a spot like this at a big FT, ICM. I mean as you outlined the crux of this hand was the fact that the big stack, due to leverage of being the big stack, is raising 60%. The reason he has the leverage to be opening so wide is that everyone else in the tournament has less of an incentive to fight back.  Often times, and please correct me if you think this is a leak, if I find myself in a difficult spot on the river I think about the resulting stack sizes and their implications. For example if you found out magically that this call worked 18% of the time exactly (knowing you only needed it to work 21%) I think you should still call because I think given the stacks and positions at the final table it doesnt change your equity in the tournament that drastically to be knocked down to 2.4 million (as opposed to 2.8 if you fold) but it helps you significantly be propelled up to 4.4 million. To me this is why the big stack can get away with opening so much in this spot because of the ICM pressure and you are now in a pretty ok spot to take that advantage away at least as it pertains to him vs you confrontations since it is a pretty big swing. Either way if you fold then you are the short stack and while I am not saying that you should make horrendously bad calls in hopes of being bumped up to 2nd in chips by 600,000 I think if the math comes out to a marginal fold than because of the ICM value of the chips already in the pot it is still a call. 

I know that this video was more a how to on the analysis, which was an A+ but that was just my 2 cents on the spot in game. 

Just as a P.S. I initially thought as I started to write that ICM dictates a fold since everyone is more or less in the same chip position other than the big stack so it disincentives people from playing back marginally, which could call for a pre flop 3bet or a flop fold potentially but once you get to the river and the pot is so big giving you such a price the more I thought about it the more it became a pretty clear call. 

P.P.S.   If everyone dislikes this video can we keep you as an Essential Producer?  JK and thanks for all the great content. 

You seemed to not like you opponents lead with 10s9s on the As 9h 7d  hand, saying that his hand does not make much sense for a flop lead. There is something to be said about figuring out which kind of spots you want to or don't want to have a leading range in, and this may very well be a spot not to have one in. If you were going to construct a leading range this seems like a pretty good hand to do it with though. I mean first of all you are getting raised very infrequently when you lead and you protect your equity if you have the best hand (prob not that often but some %) and this hand has a bunch of great barreling cards you can fire on the turn. I assume he is probably betting any 9, 10, 8, J and spade. I didn't like his turn barrel sizing because it was inconsistent with what he'd barrel with his value portion of his flop leading range (which can consist of some combo's of sets and 2 pairs).   In the exact hand you didn't even feel that comfortable on the flop with pretty near the top of your range and it wasn't until he sized it smaller on the turn that you felt better about it. Also this type of leading range tends to get him paid off when he hits, such as in this case, because it's hard to put him on the type of hand that he has.     This is something that I incorporate in my own game in live low stakes cash games (where admittedly there is less aggression) because it puts my opponents in difficult spots, it can be balanced, and cards that improve your hand often look fairly innocuous. I was wondering why you didn't think his lead made sense? 

Watching this video for the first time today has me seriously considering the upgrade, (despite it being hard to justify every month since I am playing only live poker and mostly for relatively low stakes) I am definitely going to think about this concept some more and then probably re-watch the video, but here is my initial reactions/questions.

1) As everyone seems to agree putting in the off the table work balancing multiple bet sizings seems somewhat nightmareish and could be just as hard to successfully implement in game over multiple tables over and over and over. I do not think that is cause to dismiss the strategy however and often times the hardest things to do can make the largest difference in you success. 

2) One very relevant point that I have not seen mentioned, hoping I didn't miss it reading through the comments, is the face up nature of the strategy. Say we are playing a good thinking player in a heads up no limit match and we decide that against this opponent we decide that we should lower our Cbet frequencies by 15% because they are continuing too often. (I know that this is more of an exploitative adjustment as opposed to your more complete GT adjustment to our game, but it was just an example and people who play at the highest stakes against great competition can likely come up with a better complete strategy adjustment)  My point is that lowering our Cbet frequency but keeping only one sizing is not going to be immediately apparent to our opponents, we are going to have an advantage on them until they catch on (assuming our adjustment was correct) where as splitting our range into 2 separate sizings is something that they will notice almost right away and certainly by the 10th time that different sizings come up ( so they know its not just a one hand thing). Do you think that making it so apparent to our opponent that there is something that we are doing that they need to adjust to is a big deal?

3) I could be way off on this one but my initial reaction is that there would have to be some serious analytics of our entire range in order to actually be able to tell if 1 sizing is better than 2, because if we are balancing both range as we obviously need to do there are going to be variables to consider: namely that we will some times be pricing in our opponents (with the small size) with hands that they otherwise would not have the odds to call with and we will not be getting as much value (again with the small size) with our valuebets against hands that would have called either bet.  Obviously these are 2 simple examples of problems that would arise, and we can chose which hands to balance with but ultimately there is going to be some concessions made in order to be balanced (ie laying too good a price to call, or losing value with smaller sizing). Wouldn't you have to actually construct the entire range and then put numbers and EVs to all the different types of concessions and benefits of doing this in order to be able to tell whether is better or not? Or do you feel that the Pros of doing this outweigh the Cons by such a wide margin that a quantified analysis is not needed?    

Phil or Jason, 

RE: the 73s 3bet around the 42 minute mark. Jason mentions that the reason he typically wouldn't make a move like this is that there are better hands for him to do it with. I hear video producers saying this all the time and I'm not sure that I like the logic, especially in tournaments. Basically the point, and a very valid one at that, that they are making is that you can't 3bet every suited 3,2,and 1 gapper 73+ because that's ridiculous so you should wait until you have a better candidate for 3bet bluffing something that will out preform 73s, something with blockers or at least more high card value. That's fine for constructing ranges against our 6 max cash game regulars who we are going to be in similar spots against often in the foreseeable future, but this is a tournament and there is no guarantee we get to that "better spot". What is wrong with saying, because of opponents range and how I expect him to respond to a 3bet and the CURRENT dynamics I expect 3betting 73s to be profitable in this spot.  Who's to say in the next 3 orbits we aren't going to run good against this opponent and have 2 or 3 big pocket pairs that we will 3 bet for value, then we find a "better" 3bet bluff hand but because of current dynamic of us 3betting him a bunch it doesn't do as good as the 73s would have.      

I realize that Phil actually did 3 bet and Jason didn't say it was bad or anything like that, but I just wanted to discuss how fitting the perfect hand into our range is far less important in a tournament with constantly changing dynamics than in a cash game where we will be playing against opponents in a much more stable stack size circumstance and with a larger sample size of hands. 

Chael and Boz, 

Thanks for putting the time into the combonitorics. Chael I am not sure if this was a typo or you where referring to different parts of the combos where you discounted for 3 bet bluffs but you put it next to K7s-4combos  but there are max 4 K7s combos in our preflop range and 2 of them are impossible on this flop of T77. I am assuming that the disconnect between your 105 combos and Boz's 75 combos have something to do with those kind of simple miscues. In either case we do have enough value hands without even going into Ts or nutted draws to include the GSs into our 3B range. 

I would agree with a lot of this. The biggest breakthrough I have ever made in poker was realizing that almost everyone in the player pools I was playing at, including myself, sucked at poker. Then I did and continue to do everything I can to suck less. 

I am fine with the flat pre-flop, but my God man check raise this flop. Primary value of this hand is going to be stacking AA-QQ on the flop and on top of this he has plenty of other stuff that will call a check raise and give you value with. If you are not check raising JJ you are never check raising this flop (or at least not with any sort of balance), if you are not check raising this flop you are not exploiting his cbetting too much. 

As played I call the river he has some 2 pair combos. 

22:43    the over bet here seems bad for our whole range compared to other options. Sure you can balance it by shoving combo draws and value hands, but does that make it better than balancing by betting like 55-65 and calling vs a shove on the turn with both semi-bluffs and monsters? To me there are two major benefits to bet/calling turn here. 1) We can chose not to shove when we miss our draws on the river when checked to, I'd have to run the math with some perceived value of implied odds for villain but he shouldn't have odds to call with draws that have us beat unless he perceives our range to be heavily weighted towards semi-bluffs where he might have the best hand. 2) We don't want to over bet our monsters specifically the AK, KQ portion of our range because we want our opponents range to continue.        I don't see the benefits to a balanced shoving range and assuming this play gets our opponent off 10X more often than a bet I kind of hate it because our weak portion of our range is fairing somewhere between good and great against 10X (with the great being us having 10xhh ) and obviously our value hands also want 10x to put in as much money as possible. 

I really liked this video I thought that you breaking down our hand and best action against different portions of villains range but I think it actually needs to go a bit more in depth.  I am wondering about a lot of spots where you consider/recommend/go for a check raise. It seems to be more than what is standard, which may be partially a difference between 6max and FR but idk. To put this in context of an example at ~25 minute mark on the bottom left table you flop the nut flush with AQcc and go for the check raise. When I saw this spot before you commentated on your thought process I thought easy spot for a bet. You made the great point, which I didn't consider, that there really aren't many hands in villains range that checks back flop and would have called 3 streets but I think there are elements that you left out. You didn't talk about how the villain will likely interpret your check raise, and what hands you would be c/r bluffing with (or at least what he expects you to be c/r bluffing with). In this exact spot I think that KKc will always call flop/turn and sometimes call river unimproved. I think that betting flop gets all the money in against a flopped set more often than c/r does because of your polarized c/r range where the bluff end of your range consists of Ac. Also I would assume you get more money from pair plus flush draw hands throughout the hand with a bet on the flop as opposed to c/r. So my takeaway from this hand on the flop after your thoughts and my analysis was that betting was still better than a c/r but not by as much as i had thought before hearing you explanation.   What do you think?               I think in this video you spotted some cool spots to c/r where alot of people would bet but went a little to far with it IMO, i think that too often you are polarizing your range with the top of your range and losing value not because of the hands in villains range but because of how villain reacts to your range.  I'm also curious as to what hands you typically balance with c/r bluffs because they didn't come up too much in this video.       None of this is intended as harsh criticism I am just wondering what you think of my opinions.   

Thanks for the great content,                                                                                                                                                 Joe   

                                       

If you really want to be random in certain spots  just google random number generator. If you want to raise a river 20% of the time, set it to 1-100 and raise river if it is 1-20 and fold 21-100. 

Whether or not to bluff has alot to do with tendencies and gameflow. Does villain expect yo to be betting for value as wide as J10?   I don't really love the spot because presumably you don't have that many 4's in your range which flats his 3bet, I would also assume that you 4 bet QQ-AA most of the time (though if he has seen you flat big pairs to a 3 bet before that would make the play more profitable)  I think that if you can honestly say that you are value betting enough J's and using this sizing than the line is OK but if you think you'd shy away from thinish value with J10 or if you'd value bet a different size than full pot to try to induce a call than your bluff here is highly exploitable. 

I find it interesting that in the 1010 hand you think his range is different whether he shoves or clicks it back. I get the thought that his nutted hands flat, but I think in his mind he was shoving by raising because obviously he has to call when you shove. I wouldn't expect him, to expect you, to think his range was stronger clicking it back as opposed to shoving because of you having 0 flatting hands to his click it back and him having 0 folding hands to your shove.   IMO its different then when someone 2.5X 3bets on a 12 BB stack trying to look like a massive hand with AJ or something. What makes you think his click it back range differs from his shoving range and do you think it is possible that he just does this to effectively shove with w/e he does not want to flat with (like AA-QQ)?

^^ JJ is infinitely more likely than 33 that called the flop bet, if you think there is any chance he is bad enough to call flop with 33 than I would be very happy getting it in and expect to see worse overpairs plenty. It is really a decision that revolves around the player type and readless my standard would be to shove.

At 15 BB I am open folding on the button with 22-44, and either shoving or minraising 55-88 depending on villains tendencies and minraising 99+ against just about everyone. I tend to fold 22-44 from the BB 30 BBs effect but I could be a nit.

I would make it bigger pre flop, I would like you sizing much better if you were in position but i doubt he will fold that often to this 3bet size. Also I'm curious as to why you when the b/3bet line rather then the c/r/f line if you expected him to be playing back on this texture that widely.

I would just call, but to even entertaining a fold I would have to look up his handle and find out what his average stake is and if he is a lifetime winner or not. If he had like a $5 ABI and had been an obvious satty player than maybe you could make the argument that he is only playing AA here, FTW I would still call. Do you realize how sexy QQ looks after folding for 30 straight hands.