we have at minimum 31% equity in a spot where we'd only need 12.5% equity to raise for value if we knew no one would fold. As long as 2 people call our raise we could continue to profitably raise the flop if the donker 3bet us. And if somehow everyone behind us miraculously decided to fold getting 13.5:1, we're still going to win the pot almost a third of the time.

Jon, I'm assuming if you were on the BTN and 2 or more people called the donker's bet, you'd snap raise?

Again I'm not saying don't raise here, just stating there are some times when calling is going to be correct (if you have specific read that UTG would only lead sets or flushes here mostly).

Maybe I'm wrong to assure people fold red nines when we raise, and we probably end up isolating ourselves vs better hand way less

I just think at these stakes people are looking for reasons to call rather than fold.

Why dont you want them to fold ?
In huge pot like this one, i want the money now and hope they will fold even if they have only 2 or 3 outs !
Why would you want to risk losing a 20-30 sb pots for 2 or 3 sb more profits from bad hands if they would fold ?
Miracle card do hit and in huge pot, it is not the time to see it!
Wow...



Well, seem my maths upthere, showing you in the worst case scenario that even vs 2 guys having the flush already on this flop and jamming like maniacs we are still making money, is not convincing enough that raising is better ?

fair enough.

Let's take this extreme example: UTG has a flush, would you prefer red 99 to call or fold?
UTG has a set, would you prefer red 99 to call or fold.

Worst case scenario isn't UTG has a flush and we jam, worst case is UTG has a flush, we jam, hands drawing stone dead fold.

your math is quite wrong. If we're 3 handed and get in 4 bets vs 2 made flushes it's quite bad and not making money. Getting in 4 bets instead of 1 vs made flush with Q hi draw is a disaster; how you concluded its profitable j have no idea

Nitpicking your thoughts:

a) The size of the pot is very large, and there are a lot of players who are apt to cold call. Seems like even if you raise, you will keep the garbage in.

b) Jon Locke makes a point that you should reevaluate the strength of villain's hand. Villain's donk here may mean he's really strong.

c) If you (only) have the best draw, you don't want to isolate.

IMO (a) strongly outweighs (b) and (c)

Disregarding the pot size is a sizeable mistake.
My main point was even if u end up vs only 2 villains who have the nutz on you and jamming the flop, the pot is already so big, that it doesnt cost money because with only 4 outs and a cap flop, your draw is good enough and profitable enough to win the money that is ALREADY in the pot

If some bad players would call a cap flop with even weaker hands than yours, they are the ones losing money, not you wich would help you even more.

And this IS the worst scenario !

But my main point is this:
you cannot be sure 100% you are already beat, and if you are you have much better equity usually because it is only 1 guy who has the flush not 2.
That does increase your equity significantly.

But most importantly, for now you only have TPTK that might be the best hand now, so any fold you get by raising this flop is a huge bonus because a pp would have enough odds to call for 2 outs to hit their set if you do not raise or bad pair of 6 ( like 76s, J9s, etc.) with 5 outs hoping to hit 2 pair or trips.

Those dangers of numerous weaker draw are much bigger problem to you because if you have the best hands you want them to fold.
If you do not have the best hand but facing a flush, you still have plenty of equity in the pot to win this pot.

Being wrong about not being agaisnt a flush and only calling 1 bet so that you can be outdraw later by weaker hand ( wich might have fold to a raise on the flop like pp,76s,etc) is a FAR more important mistake to make by not raising this flop than raising and just paying 2 sb ( your raise + a 3bet ) facing a made flush.

i rather loose 2 sb by being wrong about raising this flop than losing a pot of around 25-30 sb worth at the river by letting other player in cheaply for the cost of 1 sb saved, period!

I dont understand? Thats like saying if there was a $1,000 splash pot promo before the hand started and it limped to us on the button with 2-7o we would have a profitable raise.

Also nitpicking but its important, naked PP don't have 2 outers vs us. Either (a) 1 of the 2 outs makes us the nut flush or (b) they have the heart of that card in their hand which is good for us when they make a flush and call down. The parlay that nobody has us beat, black 6s peel this flop and turn exactly the 6d is quite remote

It has some merits sure but we have so much equity and the pot is massive that we want hands with like 4% equity (black pairs) to fold out

I started here. Thinking more about what Jon_locke is saying, I think he's swaying me. Basically, his thinking is that normally donking is weak, but this is a super scary board -- it is making the donker more likely to have something. Once you narrow his range, our equity is good unless we were to get the pot HU with some really strong hand (say, a set or a flush). Thus, folding out worse hands that call 1 but not 2 are a disaster
We want hands with 4% equity to call. We want this especially if they have ******* card outs, like a worse 1 card flush draw. Now if they call 2, we're super happy. Those hands are particularly groovy if we're behind, as they are giving us odds with our monster draw.

In the end, it goes to how often we're behind and how people with weak draws react to 2 cold. If the donk is weak, then lolequity = I raise. If people with the 7 giggle and call two cold, then whatevs, we have tons of equity to jam. If you buy the JL assumptions? Thinking more about this, I wonder if the villain sometimes has stuff like black A's and was waiting. Now the flop is scary and he's betting to "protect". His line looks like those people who slowplay a set on too wet a flop and then turn donk when a scare card comes. Still, only 3 combos of AA left so maybe who cares...

Jesse, black 66 is not 4%, that's only if they see the river. If the turn is a brick they can't possibly call a turn bet. So they have 1 shot at 2 outs on the turn, and one of those cards makes us the nuts.

I'd guess black 66 actual equity of they peel flop is around 2.5%

So, even though there's a chance, he's lighting money on fire to call. We generally like that. He's often in the drawing to 2nd best category.

Wow, I didn't necessarily think this hand would generate such vigorous debate, but thanks for everyone's input.

As I played the hand, I honestly didn't put much thought into it. I had TPTK -- which could be the best hand already -- with the nut flush draw in case it's not. So you get as much money in the pot when you have a hand like that, right? I figured I might get one or two cold calls, but didn't care much either way. But the way the hand played out is what made me curious about how others might see it. Here's the full hand:

V (UTG+1) raises
Hero (MP) 3-bets with AK
HJ calls
CO calls
Button calls
SB calls
BB calls
V calls

Flop: JK6

V bets
Hero raises
Everyone folds, except for V, who calls

Turn: 2

V check-calls

River: 3

V check-calls, shows KJ

So, with the benefit of hindsight, I tend to think Jon's reading of the situation is pretty sound. Granted, this is how this particular hand played out and it could have ended very differently in a different instance. So I hesitate to say that Jon is "right," but I think he's at least right to think that it's not quite as clear of an insta-jam situation as most of us might assume.

You don't know the distribution of hands behind you, so the results don't tell you as much as you think. The villain you got HU with didn't have a set and you blocked one of his 4 outs for the FH redraw on the turn -- you had him in terrible shape. He also wasn't able to correctly figure out that your flop raise meant that you never had it, and maximally punish you when he was ahead.

All of those factors are rungood or runbad in the hand. The result that everyone folded could just mean that everyone had no pair, no , and would have folded to a single bet. Some guy flashes you a mid as he folds, then we know something about the state of "will call one but not two".

Really be suspicious of results confirming plays. Little of the info you got clarified underlying assumptions, other than the guy with 2 pair donked -- it slightly confirms JL's assumption that the villain could be donking strong on this board.

The results do tell us that opponents may not be willing to peel
Super light. Sure they could all have 8s9s type hands here but it does illustrate that we shouldn't auto assume everyone behind us is gonna peel everything becusse the pots huge, and there's a good chance at least one or two of them folded s pair or a worse flush draw based on how many people there were

Totally agree, Doug. That's why I said this was just one way this hand could have played out, as played by me.

Anyway, that's why I posted it, to see what others thought without my results-based bias.

This is the opposite of my experience, but it may be regional.

The scarier the board, the more likely they donk with something to see where they're at: strong made hands with no draw, like sets and two pair, and weaker made hands with strong but non-nut draws, like KoQs.

Calling down when raised is pretty much expected. They want to get some aggression in, but don't want to check, then get faced with two cold and have to decide whether to 3-bet or not. So they'd rather get their aggression in immediately by donking and calling down.

With weaker hands, like TTh, they'll check and gladly call. With stronger hands, like flushes, they'll check and gladly 3-bet, or wait for the turn.

---

As for black 66 ... I'm less concerned about that than Broadway hands like AQ and AT, or medium pairs like JT no heart, which have a tougher decision when faced with two bets. I mean black 66 has a chance of folding for one bet so whether you raise may be moot, AT and JT is snap calling 1 and may call 2 so our decision affects the outcome a lot more than what happens to black 66.

---

As for results ... meh. I find it hard to believe people folded Qh or Th or any K, so I think it's just the luck of the draw that nobody called. I would have expected 1-2 callers in addition to the donker, and think it's more likely to get 3 opponents for 2 bets each than it is to get 6 opponents for 1 bet each.

My experience (southern California) is that donking ranges are polarized.

We are starting to see more donk-3-betting monster hands. It has started to replace waiting for the turn in big pots.

On the other hand, Callip is also right that you see a lot of donking to see where you at as well. I can totally see someone donking KQ no heart here, or even pocket queens.

I've also seen people donk this with the ace of hearts, but of course that's not relevant here where we have the ace of hearts.

JL's point was that the donk was stronger than AK, and it was.

That's just results oriented.

I think there were hands as high as sets in his range, and as low as QQh.

You said donking was weak. He said could be hands stronger than ours. Sample of one, weak? Turns out stronger than tptk. My reading of your post was that tptk was effective nuts in your mind. Maybe you consider top two weak? Maybe 2pr and sets are in the weak column, but this hand is in the range I thought you said villains never had.

It is weak evidence that villain doesn't have to be drawing vs our hand.

edit: to be fair, you included sets in your later posts. I just remembered your "donking is weak", and my first thought was "not on that board". If your villain pool considers a set weak on this board, then sure.

Other than this one tiny piece of evidence, we get nothing. Someone hero calling down QJ would be in the "hands I'm shocked he had" and would be new evidence.

Results? don't say a lot

i don't think the results of this hand support jon's argument. i'm busy right now, so i'll have to explain later.

I think people are often so focussed on not being results oriented that they actually ignore meaningful results. Sure the fact that this hand played out exactly like I said doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that it gives us a data point for (a) villains rnage when he donks into this type of action and (b) some information on other players willingness to make light peels.

I play a rated explosive style of love poker. I consider my best asset my ability to recall past hands and actions better than most and quickly process those past reaults. The truth is that in our entire life well likely have 1 days point for this Gillian facing the pre flip action and this board texture on the flip, So the RESukTS MATTER way more than people think. They just don't matter for answering exactly if I was correct, but they serve as a data point for how similarly grouped people will play similar flop textures facing similar pre flop action. And if I try my best to recall all the hands I've played, they have bands hat beat AK here often