You're crazy, how is this a "superfistpump shove"? We went 6-ways to the flop, and got CRed 400bb+ deep after a "tight player" called us. I get it's a loose game and people aren't gonna be afraid to get stacks in, but it's still a single-raised pot. We're really deep relative to the size of the pot here, and the vast majority of players are gonna be weighted heavily toward sets. Then, to make matters worse, we have to act first on the turn and commit $2K first to act if we're gonna continue when there's only $1300 in the pot.

Where are these numbers coming from?

Say pot after SB calls instead of trying to figure these out on your own, and the dealer will inform you that you can put in more than half your stack right here right now.

iggymcfly should reread OP, maybe you agree with me then

I meant first to act relative to the big stack. When SB shoves 410 into 930, that's 1340 in the pot. For us, if we even call the 410, we basically have to be willing to commit our whole 2K stack, so let's say generously that 1/3 of the time BTN has some **** draw that folds if we push. We're roughly 75% against SB and win (1750*.75-410=) $902.50. However, when BTN does decide to play and we have maybe 20% on the outside and 15% in the main, we have to commit $2000 to stay in the pot, so on average we lose (2000-.15*2160-.2*3180=) $1035. There's just no possible way this is +EV with the unfavorable sidepot situation.

What about the very favorable situation of button deciding to call with a wrap that we have dominated and blocked? If he has 78T or 8TQ it's very awesome, if he has TQK it's kinda awesome, and if he has J9 it's pretty cool. The fact we are blocking JJ and 99 weights him towards the hands we hope he has.

I would rank (on flop) jam > call >>>>>>>>>>>>> fold.

If we called flop, same rankings for turn, but even better.

you c-bet the flop way too small imo, and i think, given the sizing, you should have folded the flop UNLESS you were planning to bet/fold to the c/r. Top two w/ nut gutter does not play well against a villian that just check raised two opponents OOP, this is made worse by the fact that the check raiser has almost no fold juice on the turn even if he only gets one call. Yes he may be trying to get in a monster wrap against two opponents, but his range is more heavily weighted towards sets at this level.

Given that you called, i still dont like our hand on the turn, and this is compounded by the fact that we have another villian behind us that covers us and the last thing you want to do is get your stack in against both opponents.

2 people have said we've been cr, but we weren't. Button is the raiser.

Lol, honestly I thought that I was going to like reading this thread but it is a train wreck.

You can't fold flop for that raise and certainly can't 3bet fold. Perhaps you mind fckd yourself with the gay bet sizing, I don't know. If you think that affects button's range OK, open yours up a bit.

But most people (I'd say like 95%+ for these stacks) are not ****** around with someone else yet to act (whether he has checked or not). So IMO it is safe to conclude that he is raising because he wants to play a big pot.

Figuring out what he considers to be value here is your job. If he is pretty active he probably has two pair + draws, if he is pretty snug he probably does not. It is not a big deal if you are somewhat uncertain. You can consider the variance and fold if it is unwelcome and continue if the opposite is true. Theorists will say this is a mistake and in a certain sense they are right, but part of poker is BR management, and part of that is controlling your risk.

Anyway, I think Iggy is right to be hesitant to commit himself here. I'd ship against the first range mentioned above and fold against the later unless you have direct odds to draw to the turn.

As played and given the uncertainty we have about villain's range I don't think the turn matters much one way or another. The donker is sweetening the pot. So a mistake against villain who is IP is somewhat minimized.

That being said I'd probably lean towards folding as it wouldn't surprise me if one of them had you beat and was drawing to do so. There are better spots than being stuck in the middle of this BS.

^ this thread is a great example of why you should write clear hand histories

3/4 of the most recent posters misunderstood the action

Perhaps you are right. I had to edit my post...

Hi Rand! Been a while, how you been?

Villain's description leads me to believe his range is probably sets, top 2 + draw, and wraps. We're crushed by the first and in good to great shape vs the last 2.

Uh oh. You have to know what responses are going to come to that! We're only talking about this spot.

I have been thinking about what the best line is *under my assumption that we want to get all-in on a clean turn.*

What do you guys think about:
- overcall flop
- if SB ships turn, overship
- if SB checks, bet half his stack (205)

I kinda dig it as we kinda **** BTN if he's wrapping or has a hand like us.
Of course, given that SB didn't ship the first time, he might screw us again on turn, but that's not the end of the world either as BTN will be handcuffed from bluffing with SB having little left.

Lol good morning Tal, reading the forums early today huh?

Over shipping is strong and most of your hands value is from J9 (weak made) and not KQ (improbable nut draw). So you do not gain much from FE as the hands that can lay down you want to play against and the hands that won't lay down you mostly don't want to ship your stack in blind against. But given SBs ship, calling can be rather gay, you want to see villain over call, not raise. Since your assumption (from your flop decision I suppose) is that you want to get it in on the turn I guess you should ship over the donk.

If SB checks I'd rather bet 1/2 pot+, I think what it communicates to villain is better than 205 and none of it really matters relative to SB.

****But it is a gayyyyyyy spot to be in IMO, OOP, without the lead, on the turn, with 2-3 PSBs left. GL.

Haha ok ok, a lot of gay things about the hand. Gay cbet by me but, I agree, mainly gay spot. BR wasn't a consideration but I was a little too confused to be sticking it in so decided prudent to fold. Better spots def do come up in this game.

I had decided shoving>folding based on OD, but now kind of leaning toward folding generally. Although if a similar spot came up again vs the same opponent, I'm prob stuffing more often based on later HHs. Appreciate your inputs and analyses guys.

The KQ is pretty crucial here. Having the best sidecards in the event of a tie is great.

If villain is not smart enough to understand what we are doing, have no fear, we are live.

You can ask the dealer "How much is SB's stack?". Then ask him/her "How much is 410 divided by 2?"

That will send BTN the message that we are going to **** him in the *** soon

Guys can we chill out with the usage of 'gay' to mean 'bad', really not appropriate in a public forum.

+1

As a man who has engaged in sexual acts with other men, I am far more offended by calls for political correctness than I am by people using "gay" to mean "bad."

Unfortunately you aren't the spokesman for all the gays. I'm not trying to derail and I'm fine with people being pricks but asking people to avoid using racial or sexually derogatory language isn't exactly going over the top imo.

As played I'm calling the turn.

If the language is actually intended to denigrate racial or sexual groups then I agree, but the idea that certain words should not be used even in the absence of ill intent is indeed going over the top imo. I would argue, in fact, that tolerating political incorrectness is more important in public than in private. It's no business of mine if you want to chide people for using "gay" to mean "bad" behind closed doors, but doing so is not appropriate in a public forum.

I'd shove turn, not sure why calling would be better. Thought process behind the decision to do so?

Yeah I forgot about the guy behind, I mean I'm not excited but this was a card I'm not folding on.

And the problem is that by calling something bad "gay" you are just equating gayness with being bad. Obviously it's less explicit than calling somebody whose cheap a jew but that's irrelevant. Most people are raised to think that being gay is bad and using that language just perpetuates that thought process.

This is a perfectly legitimate reason to refrain from calling something bad "gay" yourself, but I don't think it warrants criticizing people who choose not to even in the absence of ill intent.

I'm married to a Jew and do this all the time. It's funny because Jews really are cheap, and also the people I'm doing it to are usually Jews. Nothing wrong with it if they aren't though imo.

There are certain common connotations of "gay" for which I agree that being gay is bad. One can think this without believing that there is anything wrong with or immoral about homosexuality. By discouraging people from using "gay" to mean bad, you are perpetuating the idea that there is nothing wrong with the commonly-understood negative connotations of "gay."

Dude, stop posting. Not gonna derail this thread but I'd be happy to make you feel like an idiot via PM if you want to carry this on.