FWIW I was always reading it as us being $3K effective. Was confused by jlocs post but now see I must have over-read the first sentence.

Even if we were to presume effective stacks with what becomes our main opponent is ~3k, the MP stack still plays a very important role on CO motives, ranges, flexibility, etc, no?

Again I read it as being $3K effective (vs all opponents) and it seems that my assumption was correct.

I 100% agree stacks matter I had just read us as having $3K and being covered.

My initial point was just an observation regarding an important factor that had 20 posts before mine contemplating course of action without this key information (as far as I'm concerned at least).

My second point which should have been inferred from my first wonderment is that even if effective stacks are 3k between us and the CO, both the MP and CO stack sizes are extremely important when trying to discern rationale, motive, elasticity, and range formations, not to mention meta game presumptions we need to take analysis of in order to best understand the current dynamic.

3 player pots, especially when they are played by 'pros', tend to offer a unique dynamic that revolves around squeezing, pressuring stacks, and jockeying for position and initiative. Would it make a difference to you if both opponents had 6k at the outset of the hand? We would still be 3k effective. What if one had a short stack? Think about any and all combinations of stack sizes that MP and CO could have that still keeps the presumption of 3k effective with us and hopefully you can see how the hand could be perceived in much different light.

At some point a poker hand is a poker hand and it can become fairly trivial to opine about absolute and relative strengths taking into consideration the basics (pot size, stack size, hand/board, history..). In my opinion, to take the next step in ones ability to critically analyze a hand (and more importantly, a situation), one must be stringent on knowing (or striving to know) the very most of details, so one can fully break down the most amount of scenarios that a given situation can play out.

What happens is that you learn to view a hand objectively from all player positions and 'aha' moments arrive as you see spots ripe for exploitation (either by hero or our opponents), you otherwise may have missed had you just concentrated on the heros' dilemma.

Pro who plays higher is going to have a narrower flatting range in this spot then raising range IMO. I think everyone is overvaluing vills raising range in this spot. IMO all pros play more agro at lower levels even the more disciplined ones.

Btw I was actually the villain in this hand.. I don't play that much higher than 10/20 but described myself as would be seen by the original raiser as I was chatting to a nosebleed wizard at the time.. after the hand I thought it would've been interesting if I was in his spot that's all.

My actual hand doesn't really matter given the discussion, but OR lost the hand after jamming & getting called. I think his JJ could be a fold, but if he had QQ that would've been very interesting.. or even KK with no blockers @ say 200bb+ deep..

Essentially it becomes "how do we play very strong 1-pair type hands OOP vs very aggressive(but not loose) winning pros who will apply a lot of stack pressure when deep.. who rarely turn over their hand so you don't know his true range from just a few sessions.."

I second this, but I don't hate a jam either, given OP's awkward stack size. I think we see draws and combo draws here far too often to consider folding. It's the raiser's first hand! if he flopped a set, then god bless him...time to go home and have a nice warm bubble bath.

If you're getting four callers regularly opening 3bb in early position, and if the table is sitting fairly deep, it seems correct to increase your open size to 70 or 80. It's a nitpick but I think it matters.

On the flop I think 200 is a bit much if you're wanting to bet all the way down to JJ. Once CO lays 900 to win 700 in a protected-ish pot (5 way to the flop, strong bet and strong call), I think you have a fairly easy fold. You even have a club blocker which increases the percentage of his range consisting of sets.

As far as what would I defend? First of all I think its easier to defend if you size your bet down. Imagine if you'd have made it 160 and he'd have made it 650 with 3000 behind, how much easier it would be to defend your range vs that size. As played given the size, I would much sooner defend a hand like Tx of spades, a flush draw, or even AK of spades than this. I would also be more likely to call with KK/AA, because these hands have less vulnerability against his semibluffs. I think it is erroneous to assume that AA is equal to JJ here. Having the best one pair hand on all runouts is worth more than having an even worse bluff catcher on 35% of runouts.

thoughts on limping?

Not with JJ, I think it has too much postflop value to try to put in the max % of the stacks in pre and push raw equity. I think the ideal situation is to build a decent sized 3 handed ish pot and i feel like a larger open is most likely to succeed in achieving this. And getting 4 callers is just fine too. My preflop comment was a general one that would apply to his opening range, most of which would like to isolate a bigger pot with fewer opponents.

I think limping would be fine with QQ+ AK AQ in a mixed strategy, along with AJ KQ 22-77 usually and a few other various hands.

Renton, I your posts.

Not to derail, but in regards to above, I'm having trouble adjusting to a very good game. Stacks range from $700-$3000, with a few players at each extreme but most in the middle.

The problem I'm having is just how loose this game is. It's not super aggro, just insanely loose. But to a point. Like a $50 open is going 7 ways. But a $60 gets snap folds. What adjustments can be made to play this game most profitably (where, as in the hand listed in OP, we are often taking hard equity hands OPP into fields of 4-7 players)

I used to think finding the "threshold" was key (the max a few players will call, say it's $55 in the example), but after watching a big winner over a decent sample, he 3xs his entire range as an open even when it's for sure going to go 12 ways to the flop. Why?

Well, much of what would open utg in a soft game are hands that are totally fine playing a multiway pot, but only would prefer a pot with fewer opponents. JJ is a great hand multiway, frequently flops top set or an overpair with a low SPR, these are extremely profitable hands. The only hands in an EP range that really start to suffer with 5 handed play are AKo-AJo KQo, and perhaps the weaker suited connectors which frequently make dominated two pairs and flushes. So I think the solution to your game would be to limp those hands pretty often. Most of the rest of your UTG range, including pairs, Axs, and suited broadways, are pretty happy to play a 5 handed pot.

Wow, that actually makes a ton of sense. I'm almost never limping in first to act, and maybe that's a mistake with hands like AJo (in most games I'm opening that from UTG). Let's take a hypothetical case. AJo, you limp UTG, MP raises standard amount, and folded back to you with between 0-2 callers in between. You call and see a flop? How about AKo? Limp reraise if there's a few callers?

If you limp AJo and get a raise + callers, calling would be standard there unless you can improve your EV by raising somehow. I don't think it's a particularly good limp-reraising hand, though.

AKo on the other hand was practically made to limp-reraise and you should shovel the money into the pot at that point.

Do you balance at all and limp hands like Q10s or 87s UTG so that it isn't obvious what your range is, or who cares cause lolliveaments

Who cares to an extent, but I don't see a problem with limping medium suited connectors so you can actually hit middle ranked flops. These hands play fairly poorly for a raise multiway with deep stacks anyhow. I think the best suited hands like QTs KJs etc play too well for an open raise to do anything else, though.

Renton is owning this thread