8-16. I hold AsTs on the button. Early player limps and 3off raises. 3off is an aggressive experienced player. 2off is a loose player and not too aggressive and calls. Cutoff posted behind the button her first hand and is very loose and not very aggressive.

I have posted the SB on the button so should I call or 3-bet?

I call as well as both blinds and limper seven ways raised to the flop.

Flop comes Th4h2s. Original raiser bet from 3off, 2off called and cutoff raises.

What now?

Raise pre raise now

^^

Also, you can post your missed sb on the button?! I would seriously consider missing my small blind every time and then posting it OTB.

Raising here lays 21 to 3 odds. Offering 7 to 1 is protecting your hand. You have TP, BDFD and BDSD. You must continue, obviously. This pot is quite large. You should spend extra bets trying to knock out players.

This can happen when someone leaves in the middle of their blind or something else weird happens with the seating. If they do let you come back and post on the button don't do it every time. That's an angle shoot and the floor will tell you to stop.

Yes three bet pre, ATs is a great hand.

Three bet now, TPTK is great and you have 7 outs the rare times you're behind an overpair (three A, two T, and 1 back door flush draw, 1 back door straight draw). However, if anyone caps flop or donks turn switch to call down mode.

IMHO the read that HJ is aggressive is very important here. If HJ were tight, passive and positionally-unaware, I probably coldcall there given we're essentaily guaranteed at least a 5-way pot. But if HJ is capable of raising hands like KQ, KJ, QJ, JT, T9s et al we have an easy 3-bet.

Any reads on how the villains play postflop? With drawing hands you want passive postflop play so you can see additional cards as cheaply as possible. ATs is probably on the borderline because it does have high card strength.

Snap you're way too tight passive in a lot of your threads. This is clear 3 bet preflop and clear 3 bet now. Ranges are wide and pot is big, so we want to be pushing value and cleaning up runouts by forcing people to fold their equity.

Pre-flop is meh, you can call or 3-bet, just don't fold.

But on the flop, I strongly disagree with the consensus here.

We are 7 ways on the flop. An experienced player should not be c-betting anywhere near 100 percent in a 7 way pot. Hands like AK, AQ, and AJ, which we crush, should be check-calling this flop.

So this player's betting range on the flop probably looks something like this:

88+, AT, KT, QT, JTs, AhKh-AhJh, KhQh-KhJh, QhJh

And TT+ are very likely to be 4-betting us on the flop. Some of the draws might do it as well, and we're going to hate life if broadway cards or hearts come off.

And that's just the pre-flop raiser. What does the CO, identified as loose and passive, have? Probably not hearts. Very possibly 2-pair or better.

I think this is closer to "hold your nose, call, and see if you can get to showdown cheaply or improve".

Good responses all. I just see it differently. I see myself being behind in one or two spots. I don't put cutoff on a flush draw just because of my experience in playing with her.

She says, I have top pair or better. Now if she has KT, QT, JT or T9 I'm ahead, but I don't close the action which gives the experienced player a better chance of having KK, QQ or JJ for them to continue on the flop seven ways with a flush draw out there.

And if cutoff has 44 or 22 I'm drawing very thin.

Even if I'm ahead I have to survive two streets with no heart, K, Q or J against six opponents, two of which have shown major interest in this flop and others who may surprise you yet.

Implied odds are dubious so I fold.

If however, cutoff folded or just called, of course I would raise.

To me it's a conditional probability situation where you may be ahead, but you're getting compelling evidence that you're not and a re-draw success is no guarantee of winning the pot, even if you pull ahead on the turn.

I don't disagree that you are often behind, but you also have significant equity.

I know "run it through PokerStove or Equliab" is a cliche, but run it through there. You are folding plenty of equity if you let this go to the two bets. You can always reevaluate your position if someone three bets or it goes three bet-cap behind you.

God no, easy easy raise on the flop. Cold calling has to be the worst of the options here.

Show your work. How often are we ahead, and how much equity do we have when we are not?

I would 3bet preflop but it's not as if calling is a huge mistake. I think I would rather play this 4-5 ways for 3 bets than play it 7 ways for 2 bets.

On the flop . . . I think there are arguments for calling or 3betting, but folding is really bad. Even if the original raiser has JJ/QQ/KK, you still have 6.5 outs with 2 cards to come. That's almost enough to call 2 cold even if there were no chance you were ahead now. If you have the best hand even a quarter of the time, folding is a really egregious mistake.

Folding here is an extremely bad play. There are only 3 combos of 44 and 3 combos of 22, so that's only 6 combos of hands that beat you. Even just KT alone is 8 combos, so if you add all of those other hands to her range, she is a massive massive favorite to have a worse hand than yours, you're talking 88% of the time.

3-off is an aggressive player and again there are only 24 combos of AA-JJ. AK and AQ alone are already 24 combos, so once you add in KQ, KJ, AJ, small pairs, worse Ace-X hands... you're again a massive favorite against his range.

You also have a backdoor straight draw and backdoor flush draw.

Raising almost always ensures the hand ends up 2 or 3-ways which makes it much less likely a K/Q/J on the turn or river beats you.

All this plus you have an overcard few outs in the unlikely event that you are up against an overpair. So seems like an easy raise for value and I hadn’t ever considered folding the flop.

So you believe an "experienced aggressive player" c-bets AK or worse into SIX PLAYERS after missing the flop?

I think this is wishful thinking, not reality. If you want to put into the initial raiser's range a few hands we beat (weaker tens, underpairs to the ten, heart draws), that's fine. But we can't make this "experienced" player into a complete idiot just because we would like to raise the flop.

Further, you need to also tell us what the "not very aggressive" CO raises with that we are beating? Seems to me that lots of "not very aggressive" CO's are going to just call with a T in this situation, which means CO has a strong range.

EDIT: To be clear, the flop is a call, not a fold. But raising it is burning money absent some sort of additional information that you might be able to take a free card on the turn or something.

A 3-word description is not enough information for me to decide they know how to play the flop correctly, just look at all the hands that people post in this forum and assume they are probably in the top 10% of players in the player pool. I wouldn't be surprised if the most common mistake "experienced aggressive players" at 8-16 make is to c-bet too often. They certainly aren't checking too often...

"Experienced" and "aggressive" does not translate to "good" in my vocabulary, every reg at an 8-16 is "experienced", and "aggressive" means they bet/raise a lot. So... ???

If OP can estimate a % the preflop raiser c-bets this flop, then we can revise our strategy. I obviously can't estimate a % because I wasn't there, but I'd wager the actual number (his c-bet %) is more likely to be incorrectly too high than incorrectly too low.

One of the biggest errors people make in these forums is ascribing a specific behavior based on a poster's description/read. There is the player's (pfr) actual behavior. Then there's the OP interpretation/estimate of that actual behavior. Then they have to translate into words what they think describes that behavior.

We (the reader) read those words, use our assumptions and definitions and then translate it into assumptions of what the original player is doing/thinking.

Every step of this process has error bars, and by the time you get to the end, our interpretation is most likely very different than reality.

OP says CO raises saying she has "top pair or better", implying that it's correct for her to raise the pfr with top pair or better. If that's correct for her, than it is most definitely correct for us to 3! TPTK.

I agree that if (1) initial raiser's range includes all of the missed overs and (2) CO's range contains every T that CO plays, this is a 3-bet. But I doubt both of those things are actually going to be true. I guess I'd like some more specific information from OP about both those issues.

Hand vs hand, PFR only has to bet 88+ and AK and CO one TP combo (KT) to make the 3! correct. That’s literally one unpaired combo from PFR and one non-set combo from CO. Not much of a stretch.

Stove says if PFR has AK, 88+ and CO has QT+/44/22 we have 35% equity.

CO is a loose poster. 42 is definitely in CO's range; T4 and T2 may be as well.

OTOH, if you believe CO is raising any T, there's a ton of combos of T's we beat. It really depends on both reads.

As for the initial raiser, the initial raiser either c-bets unimproved overs into 6 players or he/she doesn't. If he/she doesn't, we are behind. If he/she does, we are ahead. That's why we need the read.

Untrue. There are plenty of reasonable c-bets here that aren't overpairs. A2-A5s, heart draws, worse tens, 55-99

Last 8/16 session I played I had players raise my flop bets with unimproved overs 10 times including 3 times where they bet/3 bet them

It's your thread and thus your read, but your 3off shouldn't have A2-A5 suited to begin with and certainly should not be c-betting gutshots if he does (especially as you hold the As so none of those gutshots are going to have backdoor nut flush draws attached to them). Nor should he really be raising hands like 55 or 66 in middle position here.

Part of my problem with hands like this is that there's a huge confirmation / aggression bias here. As people often say on these threads, it's more fun to raise. So we assume that people have wide enough ranges so that we can put the raise in.

Now if you have a specific read and the two opponents actually have that sort of range, be my guest and put the 3-bet in. But don't just do it because "duh, I have top pair top kicker" without making an honest appraisal of pre-flop and flop ranges.

Not my thread.

Also I was saying your dichotomy of "either they bet unimproved overs into 6 players or they have us beat" assumes their entire range is AJ+, KQ, and TT+. Other raising hands that can or might bet this flop do, in fact, exist.

Also also I'm curious why an "aggressive, experienced player" shouldn't have Axs or 66 in their range (pretty sure you'd agree 77 is in most players' ranges here).

1. Ace-weak kicker suited is a bad hand out of position, for this reason:

http://www.thepokerbank.com/tools/odds-charts/ace-odds/

2. The problem with raising 66 or 55 (or for that matter 22) multiway is that when you are massively multi-way, you are basically set-mining with a small pocket pair, and that means you are playing for implied odds. Increasing the number of bets you put in (1) doesn't improve your implied odds, because you have now increased the denominator of your fraction; and (2) prices you in for very speculative flop calls, which further increases your denominator.

Having said that, if you have specific reads that this particular villain raises his weak pocket pairs in massively multi-way pots or plays Ace-rag suited out of position and then c-bets his wheel draws, fine, include that in the analysis.

I have no reads on this particular villain.