Call, because I know you're going to win the hand.

I would fold. It's tempting given your rationalization of the probable MW pot, but ultimately your OOP with a marginal hand.

I fold but it depends on your cognac count personal preference and current bingability levels

Agree with call and fold here.

First hand seems like a pretty standard set-mining situation. 3-betting is a bit spewy against this field size and folding is not an option. We already have the button and we prob prefer the blinds play at this point. Our hand is not strong enough to reraise for value here.

Hand 2 is pretty confusing. What's the thought process here? You are considering trying to isolate the 20/40 player OOP with a weak Q high because he's likely trying to isolate with a wide range himself? That's a good thought process in a NL game where you have some fold equity. in limit, I think your setting yourself up for trouble. If the limper continues a healthy percentage of the time, it's even worse. I don't like calling here either. When you go through the checklist nothing is favorable: pot odds, position, hand strength. Pretty obvious fold IMO.

I thought he'd raise near 100% here. Q6s is probably near the breakeven point against a random hand and I'm getting a discount.

Fold sounds good to me though.

to be clear three betting the walking sticks on the button is far superior to folding them.

7 handed 40-80, I post kill in small blind (don't worry I didn't do something stupid like open AA on the button with the leg up previous hand, its a mix game), good player raises utg and a few people fold, but accidentally put out 8 chips and ends up being forced to limp (because of folds or something I guess), folds around and good player completes BB, I have 88 in the lill and option to raise and i act last after bb checks.

If we raise I expect bb will fold a lot of his range, given there a good chance UTG will 3 bet, he wouldn't complete pf with the very bottom of his range so were not giving a free look to 2-7o, 8-3o and stuff but we are giving a free look to hands like J4s probably,

If this is a slam-dunk raise, whats the best hand you check here?

Reasonable LAG opens earlyish, erratic player three bets, relative unknown (might be adjusting a little, but mostly playing with no limit player training wheels on) caps it. Range of hands you call cold in position with?

You read me like a book dude.

In small stakes games with many pre-flop callers and relatively passive players, is a raise more +EV preflop than a call for many drawing hands? Like 67 suited, 55, Ax suited? Let's say there are a few limpers, I'm in late position. Do I raise or limp? The advantages of raising is that your hand will win a big pot when it hits and you can (hopefully) play it better than others, plus it also gives you better pot odds when you hit a draw or only partially hit the flop. On the down side, you will completely whiff more times than not and so you're losing 2 small bets instead of 1. I'm not sure what the math is.

You are going to need the best hand at showdown. Try THIS.

The action makes no sense how are you acting after the BB? You just auto act last?

I'd check and don't think it's close given he wanted to raise. You dominate zero hands.

the exact positions of you and the raisers matter immensely, as do the attributes of any players behind you or in the blinds. That said I'd pretty confidently fold AQo.

it's a good book

When in doubt on the preflop fire in the raise. The main reason for doing this with the 76s, IMO, is that if you have an equity edge raising allows you to capture that equity in two ways; you can see more turns for more bets because the pot is larger, and you get to check back more flops as the raiser.

I am on the BTN.

Blinds I can't remember but let's assume one is a loosey goosey gambool type and the other is your standard live nit.

A good Lag/Tag raises UTG 9 handed 20/40. Folded to loose passive on the button who calls. We are the SB with 88. The BB is an ok straightforward reg.

Push the call button and flop a set. For bonus points, overset the BB.

I'm not folding, and I'm not raising, so...?

I agree that call is correct in this particular example.

If this game were described as very agro post, might it be better to 3b pre or fold? If a 3b will get the BB out our chances of taking down this pot would increase significantly. I would also be operating under the assumption that our equity is comparable or perhaps even higher than the UTG raiser. I would prefer to be driving the action post. If we just call, it's going to be very difficult to actualized our equity especially if the flop goes off 4 way. We will often be forced to fold the best hand. We will be put into many difficult spots post. I also believe our show of strength pre would make the other players play more honestly.

I get it, that in an agro game like this our Implied odds for flopping a set are great. However, I'm curious how you think this compares to the potential bets lost by either making thin call downs and losing, or having to fold after putting in several bets.

I'm not thinking twice about just calling with 22's pre flop. I think 88's are interesting due to their increased playability.

BTW: I never fold here, but I'm wondering if the 3b option isn't viable maybe folding is better than just calling.

Put your UTG player on a range, and then let's talk about post flop on low textures and boards like Txx or Jxx.

If you want to talk about folding, make a case for it. I can't imagine it is anything other than terrible, but maybe I'm missing something. Since the assumed range for UTG makes calling a bit better than 3 betting, the idea that folding > calling is a long walk.

I never do fold here. I did "make the case" for considering folding in this hypothetical situation in my previous post. It may be incorrect to fold, however, I think I have presented some legitimate arguments as to the pitfalls of just calling here. I'm leaning toward a 3 bet. I disagree that folding is necessarily "terrible" when considering the possible decision trees post flop in a tough, agro game.

If you can profitably set mine 22, but you might have fold 88 due to "decision trees", there's something wrong.

I think a case could be made for folding 22 here, but not 88.

But if you think you could setmine 22 for profit here, just play 88 the same way, and you will end up losing with your set less often. 88 has to be better because you will have the biggest set more often, as well as flopping more OESDs. It is possible that reraising 88 could be even better, but that wouldn't make folding it better than calling.

I believe I sweated this hand, and told OP he needed to fold pre-.