At what point do you 3 bet a pair? 77's? Absent a read that UTG will ever fold is it best to just flat our whole continue range? SB is probably c betting close to 100%.

it's not scientific, but i'd prefer >10% probability that i can have an overpair. so i 3b 8s here:

http://people.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/mag21/

I'm curious what hands you'd consider both correct to limp UTG and to fold for a 3 bet, vs which hands you'd limp UTG and then call the same 3 bet.

i think what rob means is that the games in which he'd limp utg are games in which the posted scenario would almost never happen. i.e. avg of 5-6 limpers per pot for an avg of 1-2 bets (i.e. nice loose passive games).

I don't do a lot of limping first in, but I still do occasionally if it is a fairly loose game. SSHE starting hand chart did have a good number of recommended limps early. If the very unexpected happens and I'm facing a 3 bet in a hand with just 2 others still in, I'm going to be folding pretty much all of them.

Still not sure I like the 3 bet with 44 here, I would have to know a lot about both players before making that play, but I thought it was silly to say the limper would never fold, because I see lots of folds there from both good and bad players.

I agree there are tables that limping utg can be correct. The 8/16 half kill games I have been smoking lately have games like this. I 100% disagree in a limp fold range though.

Let's say I don't have SSHE here and you don't have it in front of you at the table. What the hands you'd limp UTG? Seems like you fold nearly all of them, so which few would you limp and not fold?

Not sure I could make a list or would want to spell it out here anyway. But I guess I'd be more likely to fold hands like small pocket pairs and more likely to stick with hands like big suited broadways that I had decided not to raise preflop.

I'm surprised that DonkeyOnTilt has a decent number hands he would limp with UTG but then would never fold any of them. Seems like a mistake to me unless you are with players who are very aggro postflop and will pay you off unusually big when you hit. And they have to be not very aggro preflop or you wouldn't have limped in to begin with.

well that's not correct imo:

games that you'd want to limp UTG in are those that are suuuuuper loose passive so you can depend on 6-7 ways pots for 1-2 bets. if you're super confident that will happen, then you can limp:

every pair
most suited connectors
every suited ace

and you should be folding more of the offsuit hands like ATo that you could play in a similarly soft but not as loose game (though i'm generally folding ATo always utg 10 handed, i know winning players who expand that range when facing that kinda table)

+1

If you limp 44 UTG and fold it to a 3 bet, I think you're making a huge mistake. You'd have your 1 bet, the 3 from the initial raiser (he's never folding for 1 more) and the 3 from the 3! guy, and a blind, so that's 8 bets already, and you have to call 2 more? You're always getting paid if you hit a set.

If you're limping suited Broadways UTG, that's wrong. Calling them instead of PP hands? They're the hands that are likely dominated. KQs and ATs would be more correct to fold than 44-66.

AA

In games I play you're rarely getting paid enough implied odds to make set chasing correct 3 ways for 3 bets. Maybe your games are different - I mentioned it could be fine if the game is aggro postflop. Also the raisers are the blinds here so there isn't additional blind money padding the pot.

There are a few hands id limp in very specific spots at specific tables and if I did I wouldn't then fold to a 3 bet. It's so rare it's not worth dissecting. I'm just saying I would never limp to then fold. I would be raising with those type of hands.

2/3 structure sb/bb game:

1) hj raises; button folds: i have 4-4 in the sb

2) Co raises, Btn 3 bets, sb folds, I have KTcc in the bb

3) 6 handed, HJ raises, I'm in the cutoff with A6dd

4) A2ss in sb against a button open

5) btn raises, I have J9o in the sb
---------------------
Heres my answers:
1) call
2) fold(?)
3) fold
4) 3bet (?)
5) fold(?)

I'm lost on some of these, also never played in this structure game before so im curious how much it affects our strategy in the small blind, is it ok to flat more because the price is attractive? or should we be more aggressive because its "cheaper" to 3-bet?

1) fold.
2)call
3) fold, but it's close
4) raise
5) fold.

I think 3-betting 44 is correct in #1. Vs one raiser no callers I don't really have a calling range in the small blind.

Default answers, no reads.

I agree with all answers except I lean towards raising the 44 unless I know it's a nitbox.

20/40 9 handed. It's been a good game but once in a while this situation occurs.

Folded to Lag/tag on the button who raises, TAG 3 bets in SB.....Lets assume Button is never folding if its 4 bet. Assume I am flatting whole range in the BB. Assume the button and SB play well post flop. What does your call range look like?

Assume button range is at least 55%. He may be opening more but I don't have a good enough sampling.

Assume the SB is 3 betting top 25%

I'll post my range. Let me know if you would tighten up or loosen up. Feel free to question my assumptions.

44's+.....I suppose 22's and 33's are fine but I prefer not playing them. 44's start to have a little playability beyond flopping a set.

A2s+

9Ts+.....I may expand this range against bad players...maybe down to 78s

KJ+.....maybe KTo against bad players?

A8o+

When you're facing a tag 3-bet and you're willing to call 44 I'm not seeing how it's different from 33 or 22. Squeezed between a tag and a lag I'm wanting to flop a set to continue anyway.

I don't have much experience in two chip three chip blind games but this seems like an auto call, right?

One limp, raise, three cold calls, I have Q3 suited in the small blind.

My range would generally be something like
A9o+, A2s+, QJo, KTo+, K8s+, Q8s+, J8s+, 22+, and suited connectors 56s+, one gappers 68s+

I'm getting 8.75-1 immediate but it's more like 9.5-1 because the big blind is probably never folding (also assuming limper calls). I'm struggling to see an argument against calling here. I would rather have Q3 suited here than A9o, that's for sure.

Definitely a call

Note this is a response to mongidig, not tdk