1/3 game on a weekend night. Main villain is fishy, splashy MAAG dressed for a night on the town, fancy jeans, button down, nice watch, etc. He has some grasp of the game, and is always talking about flushes on 2-tone boards. When people call his bets he keeps saying "you trying to buy it?" I assume, the way he thinks, they are trying to "buy" a flush by peeling. He is def. capable of bluffing, but haven't seen him do anything outrageous, such as....

OMC (UTG - $300) - opens to $12

Designer Jeans (EP - $500) - calls

Hero (B - covers) - calls with 87

FLOP ($35): 898

OMC bets $20

Villain calls relatively quickly

Hero raises to $80

OMC folds

Villian thinks for maybe 10-15 seconds and jams it all in there

Hero?

He's trying to buy it. Insta call.

Tough spot. I think calling or folding are both defendable. Personally, I lean toward being nitty & folding readless, as A8/T8s+ are all possible, and we're only "happy" when villain has QJdd/JTdd, etc.

I don't see any answer here other than call.
I really need solid convincing history and read to deviate to a different choice being correct.

I think trips likely raises this wet flop, so I'd put him on 99, 98 or some big draw given the initial flat. If he does have 99 or 98, I don't see why he would not flat the second time. I think it smells more like a big draw. I call.

The backraise is so gross. Do you remember what he said about flushes on two tone boards? I guess you have to call now that you stuck in a third of your stack already.

20% is committed, not 33%, big difference. But I get what you're saying.

I can imagine maybe 7-8 FD vs 11 premiums, so we're probably around 30-35% equity, and pot odds are approximately 1.5:1, meaning this is arguably a fold if we don't default to simplistic logic like "were at the top of our range" or something similarly reductionist. Even if you add a couple combos of overplayed TT, it's still quite close.

I'm sure our plan was to try to commit vs the omc overpair range, but dynamics have changed.

snap call, let him river the 7 so you both have something to be happy about.

Uh, call?

Him calling fast OTF weights more of his range towards draws.

Hard to properly range jam with such limited information, but it would be fair to say he could have his share of FD and at times FD + SD that he’s jamming it in with. Call and hold IMO

A backraise is just always super strong. Not folding though cuz you can’t win if you fold bruhhhh.

Thanks for the replies. I didn't think it was too close at the time and called pretty quickly, thinking that (1) if he has even a few flush draws it's a call since his value range is so narrow and (2) his initial call combined with his flush draw obsession made it seem likely he could be doing it with a draw.

Anyway, turn was a and V looked like he was gonna puke. He turned over Q8o and said he thought I had a flush draw and if I wanted to "buy it" he was going to make it an expensive purchase.

In retrospect I've been thinking that this type of V just might not ever be putting this much money in the middle w/o a made hand. Maybe my description belied this V type, he was splashy pre but playing relatively straightforward post. My general strategy is to almost always let it go when a fishy V plays back at me - they just always have it. So I've been thinking maybe I shoulda coulda found a fold - probably just being results oriented.

I'm not so sure I call preflop; suited connectors are overrated, imo, and have some pretty poor RIO compared to their IO (this hand being a perfect example of that). I don't hate it since we likely have a pretty good handle on the openers range, but whenever someone else gets involved things could get ugly.

Unless this guy has shown a history of getting in big stacks with lol hands or big draws, I nit fold on the flop. We basically beat like 86. Shorter stacks that can go in super easily (like $200-), whatever, sure, snap call. IME, big stacks simply don't go in without nuttish hands, and we beat hardly any of those.

Admittedly, against an unknown who might not have that much casino experience (I HAZ TTs!!!), this is a difficult fold. But I still lean towards it this deep.

Grespectbigstacksizes,imoG

I agree with the call. I think the main reason to call is to look for value when you hit some sort of nut hand (two pair or better against these opponents). Suppose you want 25:1 implied odds for this. You'd need to expect to win $300 when you hit.

1. You're against two opponents.
2. Each has stacks more than $300.
3. UTG is strong because he's opening UTG and since this is $1/3, he'll probably get a ton of money in with top pair and overpairs. EP is fishy and splashy, so I think you can expect to extract a lot of value from him too.
4. You have position, making it easier for you to extract value.

As for raising, 87s isn't strong enough to raise for value, even if the Villains have wide ranges. Even if it was "strong enough", raising decreases the SPR, giving you less implied odds. Plus, these opponents aren't the type that you can extract value from by bluffing. So 87s just isn't the type of hand that makes sense to be raising for value if you don't expect to win money by bluffing when you miss. Similarly, raising as a bluff wouldn't make sense either (they're not folding pre, or post when you miss).

I think there's a lot of value to be had here by reraising. OMC looks like he has some sort of overpair that he wouldn't want to fold. Villain looks like he has some sort of draw. The board is very draw heavy, which means that from their perspectives, you could be raising with a draw, making it more likely that they'll call you.

As for raise size, I'd keep it around 3/4 pot. I think both opponents would call up to a pot sized reraise, possibly more, but the main reason I wouldn't want to do that is because I think it'd make it harder to get value on later streets, mainly the river when you blast it early.

One relevant question is what hands he could have that have you beat. 99 is one. A8s is another. Probably K8. Maybe Q8s. Maybe J8s. T8, 98. So there are some, but not very many combos.

Another relevant question is whether there are any second best hands he would be doing this with for value. Possibly 86s. Maybe some straight flush draws or small overpairs, but probably not.

I think the most important questions is how big his bluffing range is here. The pot odds look like they're about 3:2, so you need about 40% equity to justify calling.

Given your opponents style, I actually would expect him to raise right away with his bluffs. He initially flat called OMC's lead. He only raised after you reraised. Calling and then reraising as a bluff would be a pretty weird play. Not impossible, but I think it needs to be discounted a fair amount.

My impression is that he just doesn't have enough bluffs in his range here to justify the call. If he truly is a wild maniac, then I suppose you do have to call, but I don't think the evidence is there to assume that.

This.

Q8o **** me sideways, he's in EP and he calls an UTG OMC raise with Q8o. Whoa, though I guess nothing should surprise me at low stakes.

Mental note to isolate players in designer jeans...

100% standard. When V wants to play a hand, V plays a hand. Story over.

2 or 3 sessions ago I ran into an 84hh in a 5b preflop hand. I was way light as well so nice read by V. Even nicer binking the flush.

We beat flush draws, combo draws, overpairs and smaller 8x. And spaz.

We lose to 99, 98 and bigger 8x combos

Have to call here with pot odds

Grunch

This is kinda ****ty. We need like 40% equity. What draws/worse hands does V have here? We have basically the worst 8 like always. I doubt V is doing this with 99 or 98 (plus there is only 1 combo of 98s). I guess V has enough Axdd to make his a call because there aren't a ton of value hands either. I'm not thrilled about it though

I think it's close with the dead money in there, but I probably default to "The Course" philosophy and fold since 1/3 players rarely make a big bluff like this - but I try to play a lower variance style, so call could be EV correct.

You clearly play more/different low stakes than me. The amount of light 5 bets pre I've ever seen I could count on no fingers.