1/2 , 7 handed

Utg limps,
utg +1 limps
Fold
Hero raises to 15 with 9T
Button calls
Sb call
Fold
Utg calls

Villain ($400) on the button seems fairly competent, playing pretty deep and playing fairly tight pre over small sample. Very cautious post flop though and hes made a couple mistakes because of this that Havent cost him yet.

Sb ($60) is a shortstacker that plays fairly tight preflop, no other real reads

Utg ($275) - no reads, other than he limp folded first 3 hands

Hero ($250) hasnt connected much with the board tonight but has been raising a ton preflop and people are probably getting annoyed as this table generally loves limping other than the button.

4 ways to the flop!

Flop $60

AJ4
Sb checks, utg checks, hero?

Basically wondering if a bet here is good considering how it is quite likely ill get called by any A. I think that everyone thinks im pretty much FOS since Ive been raising so much preflop and sometimes stabbing post flop. Is a bet good, knowing theres like a 75% chance or higher that im getting called? Thanks

You have 40% equity against an ace so unless you are over betting the pot, a bet here is almost always profitable, even if they only fold a small % of the time. You can then check back bad turns and realize all your equity on the river.

This should be a spot where you're capable of both betting and checking, esp. if you play against these folks often.

If you don't mind the ultra-high-variance, probably-negative-EV (but might give you some image equity if you rebuy or play with the same people) possibility of dusting money unnecessarily and/or shipping your stack, here is a possible way to play this hand:

Flop: bet 30 and be prepared to stack off.

Turn: bet 70 and be prepared to stack off except on a non spade board pair.

River: stack off for 135 on any non-A.


If we're trying to play the hand profitably, just check-fold. If V is not making mistakes, he won't pay off a FD. Also, if others call or raise, it greatly increases the likelihood you are getting some reverse IO on your FD.

The reason semi-bluffing is profitable is because you have FE. In the absence of FE, its only strengths are disguise/making you less predictable, which is only useful short-term if you hit, and long-term against observant opponents you will be playing at the table with for a while or run into repeatedly.

But if you think they might fold an unimproved top pair by going for the triple barrel, then it's something to genuinely consider, especially if you aren't just going to ship your stack, go home, and never see these players again.

Its more or less the NFD w some bds and FE. Pile in the chips before the river as best you can.

Have we lost our minds?

why on earth do we want to bet into 3 people who think we are fos

If we had tighter image this would be a perfect situation to bet, but since we don't have that image the decision is not so clear. Still, the way you described the players involved and their stack sizes there is a lot of merit in betting here. If we stay in the hand with just the SB we don't lose almost nothing since we will see two cards and the price is right against his Ax. Utg can only beat us with 44 and his range looks like 22-JJ and a bunch of suited connectors (with SC's being less likely since he already limp-folded couple of times. If this range is accurate he probably missed this flop and will just fold.

Button can very likely have AK-AT or PP and it is now only a question will he raise with his Top pair hands? it looks like he will raise two pair +, and that would put us in a bad spot, but if he will just call with his TP hands we are good even if he doesn't pay us off (because there will be 3-1 pot odds with two cards to come when the SB moves all in). So if the BTN will fold his unimproved PP's , call with his Top pairs and raise with AJ or a set, then we can bet here if we count on him checking the turn, which we should count on in view of your description of him.

Here there seems to be a really great bet size choice ---->35-40. This will not give the option to the BTN to reraise after SB goes allin and we can continue with our plan of going to the river for a total of 60$invested (without PF money) (unless the turn brings us our draw).

The other option would be to bet 30 and then to make a big reraise if btn calls and SB goes all in (we would prefer to to this with a starting bet of 40-50, but it is impossible because of the SB's stack size)

This is all working if the stack sizes you gave are after the preflop action, if this is not the case , then my above sizing is not valid,

sb checked so that you can bet and he can go all-in with his Ax or PP. With 3 players to act after him, I'd say he is likely to get his wish. You clearly want to bet into a 4 way pot, so make it at least enough to put sb all-in and see if either of the other two call. If they fold, at least they will get to see you weren't bluffing with your draw as you probably double up the sb but show anyway. I don't think you've thought this thru......

What were we hoping for when we make it 15 w 9Ts?

Your image is poor, your hand is average. you can't decide pf you're going to play aggressively, get a good flop and all of a sudden become timid. Maybe betting 20 is a viable option, hoping short stack shoves and you can jam over the top.

I'm confused by a lot of comments in this thread such as:

"If we're trying to play the hand profitably, just check-fold." No.

"sb checked so that you can bet and he can go all-in with his Ax or PP." Huh? SB has a super wide range, and is usually check/calling or check/folding.

In this spot I'm probably betting my entire continuing range. If I check it is because I am giving up.

There is a clear misunderstanding between equity and FE.

Without FE, underdog should always rather take a free card than to essentially bet for the other person.

If this was a game of flipping coin, would you ever want to bet for less than 50% equity?

There is more to poker than bet or fold.

So insightful. Our range crushes open limpers and a button cold call on this board. It's pretty challenging to create a balanced flop check range here, and regardless we need to have some flush draws in our betting range to avoid capping us when a spade comes on the turn or river. And if we don't care about balance, we have more fold equity than I think some folks are giving us credit for and the value of folding out the button is significant.

Not much I can do in response to something above.

Not sure how you came up with that assumption, and such assumption is only relevant if you're trying to argue fold equity.

Do you think there is fold equity in this spot?

Balance is a moot argument.

So the basis of your argument is that there is FE and therefore we should bet?

Obviously if there is FE, few could argue against betting, but clearly the discussion is focused on OP thinking there isn't FE, so let's try to stick to the main thesis.

Or bring more to the table to argue why there is FE.

I don't think that OP's read that people think he is "FOS" is as important as some might think. Folks can be surprisingly unobservant, and even if they are paying attention, this is still a tough board to continue on just because OP has been blasting. Sure, we're not going to get someone to fold an ace, but that's not exactly what we're targeting for folds.

We obviously have fold equity. It is untenable to assume that all three of our opponents are going to call a bet with 100% of their range. It's just a question of how much.

How our range compares to the opponents' is not "only relevant if you're trying to argue fold equity." It is the cornerstone of deciding what to do, even if playing exploitatively.

When we raise two early position limpers we should have a pretty strong range that plays well on an A-J-high board. We will get plenty of folds from hands that miss and when we don't, we have plenty of equity from the flush draw. If button folds (which he often will) we can check back the turn.

Above quote is applicable in just about any scenario in LLSNL.

Again, another low content and wordy quote.


But didn't you just say that people don't pay attention?

How are you using people not paying attention as both sides of argument?

I have no clue why and with what substance you are bashing the guy.
frankly, it seems like you just have to have the last word once you get into a conversation, even if it´s rather pointless. his points are valid.

There is a difference between players paying attention to your image and paying attention to the hand. We are typically far more self aware of our image than we ought to be. And even if someone sees us as loose and overly aggressive, that doesn't always translate into a change in how they play against us.

The passage you quote refers to people folding on an A-J high board when they limped or cold called against a preflop raiser. Folks will do that regardless of your image.
-----------------
Sauhund, much appreciated. I'm getting a lot of shade from someone whose substantive contribution to this thread was "There is more to poker than bet or fold" and a very simplistic comment before that.

And your point of white knighting is?

There are really only two ways to go about this discussion:

1. Go with the notion that there isn't FE and discuss how to best proceed.

2. Present argument beyond pointing out the obvious why there is FE.

What you have done is writing bunch of fillers that could apply to most LLSNL scenarios even without history.

If you think that suffices to argue there is FE, and obviously one person agrees, then my bad, moving on...

If we truly have no fold equity (e.g., all 3 opponents will call a bet of any size 100% of the time), then betting is ev+ because we usually have more than 25% equity, which would be our "fair share" of a 4-way pot (we'd generally have to be up against a bigger flush draw to have less).

But I also don't see why bifurcating a discussion of a hand into a world of fold equity and a world of no fold equity makes any sense or has any analytical rigor. Whether and to what extent we have fold equity is just one of many factors that go into our decisionmaking.

Against players described you should bet more than you check, we can bet small here and fold if a deeper stack makes it too much

Betting seems especially important to try and fold shorty off a jack incorrectly

Yet you've done neither.

Well, you sure made it quite easy for me when you are arguing bet when you acknowledged zero FE as equity dog.

Why do you think there is no FE here? Obviously no one is folding an ace on this flop, but why do we think people are calling without an ace? Do our opponents have an ace 100% of the time? Of course not, so FE is not zero. If our FE + actual equity is anywhere near 50% it is a clear bet because of the money already in the pot. Even considering checking this hand is malpractice unless we you are very certain that you are getting raised.


Even if the short stack shoves we are putting in $60 getting 2:1 and having 40% equity, which is clearly profitable.

Can't speak for RP but I'm reading his posts as saying 'if there is no FE, then...' rather than 'since there is no FE, therefore...'.