9-handed 1/3, conundrum (or not for many)

V1 (~$350), 30s Hispanic guy, BB, tight, passive and basically fit/fold, maybe scared money

V2 (~$1,500), 40s white guy, UTG+1, bit of a maniac. Plays almost every hand for almost any price and will chase. On his first or second hand at the table he won ~$1,500 pot w/ 7c8c calling a $100+ pre-flop raise and two all-ins on a Kc9c3x (or similar) flop vs. AA and AK.

V3 (~$1,000), 40s white woman, BTN, very loose, complete station, usually bets when she has a bigger piece but will call down w/ almost any piece for almost any price. Has been hitting draws, two pair, etc., like mad tonight.

Hero (~$375), 50s white woman, CO, perceived as on the tighter side and slightly aggressive. In for $500 – working my way back up after getting crushed by V3’s draws (she will call a pre-flop raise of $60 w/ 58o).

OTTH:

V2 straddles for $10. V1 tries to make it $10, then sees the straddle and realizes he is BB. I notice this, but not sure if anyone else does.

UTG folds, V2 checks his straddle, folds to me and I make it $40 w/TT, V3 calls (always), and V1 raises to $120 (thought that might happen).

V2 calls (of course). There is $320 in the pot and it’s $80 to me and I’m pretty sure V3 will call.

Hero? V1 has AK or a big pair, maybe AQs. Regardless, I know I’ll find out on the flop. I also know if I hit or I have a favorable flop I can shove, I will get paid by at least V2. Do I shove and let V1 see five cards with AK and/or call with a better pair, flat and evaluate flop, or fold and wait for a better spot?

Folding is out of the question for me in this spot against described villain.

I have a hard time seing myself not shoving it allin pre here given all the money in the middle+ the maniacs range can be wider than we expect in these sort of limp/raise spots.

Allin, and ride the variance train that is inevitable in these sort of games.

Ninjaedit: obs,mixed up the villains. If tight passive guy reraised us i am out of here.

Based on V1's read and initial attempt at raising from the blinds, I'm just limping in and seeing if I can get a good price to setmine. Raising just to get 3bet (which we're pretty much expecting) sucks at these stacks, imo.

As played, even if V3 overcalls as expected and we when we flop our set we get someone to stack off 100% of the time and we hold, we're being asked to call $80 to win $655, so just ~8:1. KK ain't going to always stack off on a ATx flop. KK will still beat us upwards of ~10% of the time on Txx flops. Are we banking a lot on collateral damage from others postflop / winning without a set? Meh.

GcluelessNLnoobG

tough spot givin its V1 that raised

what makes it a sucky spot is your stack size compared to V1

there is not big side pot to play for with V2 V3

so I'm either gamboling and calling or folding, NEVER shoving

if your positive you can read V1 after flop correctly then tossing in another $80 as a gamble to double thru V2 and maybe triple thru V3 sounds enticing!

Really shouldn’t be playing this hand if you aren’t just going to stick it in on 37.5 bb effective with wide ranged fish in the mix.

So given that we elected to play this hand, I’m quite unhappily putting the $ in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From your description on V1, he rarely has AK/AQ here...passive fit/fold types generally don't three bet with less than a big pair...which means your tens are in trouble.

I'm not sure why you opened for $40 knowing that V1 wanted to open from early position...in my home games, people open when it's not their turn quite often (not paying attention)...they almost always have the goods if they raise when the action gets back to them.

Seems to me to be a fairly straightforward fold.

I played a very similar hand, but I had JJ recently. I had a weird vibe and folded pre. Turns out he had KK. It was easier for me because I knew he was a nit.

As played, fold.

Let's think about what type of hand a passive, tight, and fit/fold player gets so excited about that he raises first out of turn and then 3bets after a raise pf. If your reads are right, it is only AA. I would have just called the first go around since you were likely behind and at best slightly ahead.

As played, you need both V1 and someone else calling to make your set mine pay off. I think it is an easy fold. If your reads are right, on a small flop you're way behind. If your reads are wrong, you shouldn't be playing a big pot with a marginal, vulnerable hand.

Confused by how the straddle works in this game, regardless I'd fold given the opponent image/sizing relative to out stack.

Also, seems odd he would raise 3.3 bbs before recognizing the straddle.

I'd fold. Squeezes are much stronger than regular 3bets.

We effectively have 37.5BB's. So it would be either a ship or fold spot.

I’m not sure why everyone wants to limp along. It’s not like we’re getting an amazing set mine situation.

Deeper then sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I mean even if he does a very poor 3x sizing after 3+ limps, we're still only getting about 14:1, which is pretty meh. We're basically hoping for really poor sizing / incredibly multiway / getting paid off massively by the others as well, and perhaps even a time or two we've misread things and it limps around (where then at least we get to ~setmine).

GcluelesssetminingnoobG

You're right...but the other two options aren't great either.

This game has a Mississippi straddle, and this guy was straddling everywhere -- he was UTG this hand. BB (V1) didn't realize he was BB or that there was a straddle until after he had put out $10, then called it back and put out his $3 bb.

This was my thought, and I thought I'd be the only one, so thanks, snowman

I flatted, and V3 came along.

Flop was 2 3 4 rainbow. V1 checks (he does not have a pair), V2 checks, and I shove. V3 folds, which is a miracle, V1 folds, and V2 calls. Runs out 234 A 8 and MHIG.

V1 had AK and was not happy about the A. I can't believe he didn't just shove the flop. I knew the flop would tell me what I needed to know about his hand -- love tight-passive-scared players.

It’s a very gamble-y table and most players are easy to beat. I was only down because V3 was getting lucky, and I was more than willing to top off again. She ended up giving a bunch back, and V2 bled it all off.

I posted this as a way to think about hands. I know it's probably not correct mathematically and is not perfect poker, but it's live NLHE and sometimes it's best to play hands a little differently -- especially when you have good reads. There are so many bad players out there, and sometimes it pays to think outside the box.

Edit: If V1 had made a real raise pre, I would have folded.

I still don't get why you raised preflop tho?

ETA: V1 ended up putting in 1/3rd of his stack preflop; this isn't a "real raise"? And snowman's trifecta of not only stacking V1 but also possibly both others is simply a pie-in-the-sky one that is highly unlikely to happen.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Ok, so this is basically a brag kind of thread to show how brilliant you are?

You think you played the hand like a genius, when the reality is you very likely made a -EV call preflop and alot of small things went right for you to win this pot. Just like the case was in the thread where you stubbornly argued about opening 43s from UTG being a fine play and you ran way from the thread when you didnt have anymore arguments- this is also a pretty clear -EV play.

What you mention as "playing outside the box" and "not mathematically correct" is exactly that. Its an urge to gamble really without the plays being fundamentally sound+ you seem to think you can do whatever you want cause you are better than the bad players-wich is known as winners tilt really.

Just like several posters told you about the 4 high raise from UTG: its a losing play, and you making it work x amount of the times doesent change that. Its positive variance and sample bias/confirmation bias.

Actually, it's not a brag at all. I don't think I was a genius. I actually thought this through as the hand progressed based on what I knew about my opponents.

Everyone thinks posts are either brags or bad beats or someone gets ripped for playing badly. Why can't there just be a discussion sometimes that's not about math, spr, etc., but about how bad live players are and how to beat them? It's how I win most of my money -- playing the players and not always thinking about math and "what would 2+2 do"?

V1 made a terrible raise pre-flop. If he had played the way 2+2 told him to, he would have made it at least $160 pre but probably more and he would have shoved any flop. But he didn't. What if he had posted here? You guys would have ripped him a new one.

I do have the advantage of a fairly closed player pool, but a lot of us do, and we should be discussing that sometimes and what people come across in real life.

As to the question of raising when I knew V1 wanted to raise -- I had no idea how big his hand was or if he would 3bet, and there is no way I'm limping with TT to find out. Heck, he could have changed his mind when he realized there was a straddle.

As to the 34 raise, I already stated I do that maybe once a session, and often I raise w/o looking at my hand. Also, I don't do it from UTG, but MP or later. I'm pretty sure that example was six or seven handed and UTG+1 or later.

If you guys can't play blind sometimes and don't ever try it, you are missing out. It's a great exercise, but I know most of you disagree so I'll leave it at that.

Java, the only thing that should matter from our perspective is whether we most likely made a profitable play long term (regardless of how it worked out this time). I doubt putting in 1/3rd of our stack preflop to see how things go postflop is going to be profitable. But you're free to disagree.

BTW: Any clue as to what V2 had that he called the flop with? FWIW, if he had naked overs then his flop call is almost breakeven, and he has a trivial call if he has something like a pair + gutshot (thanks to getting about 3:1). So even though it obviously worked out for us in this particular case (when V1 doesn't continue / get tricky, when the board comes awesome, when we don't shove into someone's nuts, etc.), it's not as if even here we're shoving with 100% equity and printing all this money every time V2 calls (unless he is calling the flop with stuff like 97). And that will eventually show long term on the bottom line.

ETA: Also, whether V1 made a terrible play or not is irrelevant to our play. If everyones strategy at the table is to shove blind preflop, that means every hand someone is going to win a hugenormous pot. Does that mean the winner is playing well?

Ggoodluck!G

Yeah I mean it’s either overlimp/call with the tell or raise/GII. Between raise/call and raise/fold, raise/fold is probably slightly better but both seem like miserable ways to play the hand.

Like if you never ever ever call for 1/3rd of your stack preflop in NL, you’re probably playing close to correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

when I 1st transitioned from card counting to poker; I lurked this site.
bought the books. applied the basics, put in time on the felt, and reread chapters so that the AHaa moment would hit.
made money ;then opened up in late position, tightened up early and made more money.
after 10 + yrs on the felt may reading skills were solid enough to apply instead of blanket assumptions; this so called unbalanced play is where my game really improved because I made those adjustments.
90% of my decisions are playing the player.
10% follows basics toward unknowns
my responses to posts here always are based on what any OP gives for reads.

If you can't fold KK pre flop to the OMC/NIT who you have 2000hours with and only raises UTG with AA when not getting set mining odds then your burning money.

I do use math but based on my reads not random hands that some like to tweek just to get to the # they need to make a call.

Mason Malmuth, the owner of "2+2" and this website has run the company based on poker being a matter of logic, math and deduction. Hence, the name. It should be little surprise that the denizens of his website would exhibit similar traits. He and David Sklansky would argue that the way you beat bad live players is math, spr, etc.

As for the play in hand, David Sklansky wrote "The Theory of Poker" that your non-standard play for deception should be at least breakeven. What many people are telling you is that this hand wasn't.

People play poker for many reasons. They can change from hand to hand. If you want to play a hand that is -EV for some other reason than maximizing your return, that's perfectly fine. If you want to find out if this was at least a EV neutral approach, posting is great. I think what you are running into is that people highly respect you on this forum and are surprised that you are defending what is in their opinion a "bad" play.

their opinion ignores the reads on V's
I agree with OP here
we should be able to have a discussion BEYOND LEVEL 1 THINKING

Do I agree putting in 1/3 of our stack in the long run is ok ; NO

in this specific instance given the line-up and more specifically her reads I'm ok with it.
If the intend is to keep this forum at Level 1 thinking or below then where should advanced discussions take place .
OR are they not welcome here ?

not being rude but these hands do come up and you make a decision while sitting there ; so after and away from the table why not discuss them?

Thank you, snowman. Said better than I said it. If all we are doing here is discussing math and how to play "perfect poker," it's worthless. We need reads; we need to know what other people end up showing; we need to explain how we react in "that moment."

We are playing poker in the real world, and most of our opponents don't even know what 2+2 is and have never read a poker book. SPR? Forget it. They barely know odds. I play with people who will call $25 pre with a $75 stack and fold on the flop if they don't hit a pair or if a card bigger than their pair hits. LOL.

There was a recent post where someone called an all in w/ KQ and top pair vs. a middle-aged woman who was tilted. Yes, he was right, but it was not a good call and he should never make it every day, yet he didn't get flamed. I thought it was burning money and he got extremely lucky, but he did make a good read, which is what mattered in that moment.

I was playing my TT knowing the pot was going to be huge and I had the possibility of at least doubling up. I got extremely lucky, too, but I went with my reads.

gobbledygeek, I have no idea what he had, but my read was he'd call with just about anything once the money was in. I also didn't say V1's play was relevant -- I was just making a point about how this forum generally works.