For what I hope is the last time, GG, SPR is a concept designed for HU pots. Considering low SPRs committing when we are up against a lot more hands and thus a higher chance of someone outdrawing us is very bad.

Even though I don't 100% agree with this statement (especially the bolded part, which is not correct at all as SPR can still be useful in multiway pots, even just regarding betsizing let alone some commitment decisions) I realize what you're getting at: that we should be less willing to commit at small SPRs in multiway pots than HU pots (and the reasoning is actually what I continually go back to: the IO we ended up offering). I totally agree. The problem is that with the SPR so low that someone can trivially force us to commit (and it's likely the case we should even just grit our teeth and commit ourselves anyways). What we should actually be doing, imo, is *avoiding these stoopid spots altogether* (but I'm outvoted on that by a large margin, so whatever).

I mean, what's our plan? We've flopped an overpair on a drawy board. Are we just going to check down a huge pot and hope the draws don't come in? Bet (or call) super small bets and just hope for the best? That doesn't sound like a great plan, and it looks like you agree with that thanks to your flop raise. But now we're going to stick in 1/3rd of our stack and then make some sorta soul/speech read with < PSB left on a blankish turn? Obviously I can see our commitment plan changing on a scare card, but when it ~blanks out I just don't see how we can do anything but commit. And this was all pretty much predestined preflop.

I'll let someone do the math, but at this point we only have to be right somewhere around 30% of the time for a call at this point to be profitable. I'm pretty sure we can come up with some ranges that easily make a sigh call here profitable. The problem is that just because a sigh call here is profitable doesn't mean the hand as a whole was necessarily played profitably (toy case: we always raise preflop to stack - $1, making the final call of the $1 bet always profitable but obviously that doesn't make the overall method profitable).

GimoG

GG there is no single SPR in multiway pots unless stacks are near identical which is why it's most useful for HU. Your strategy is actually perfect for getting the SPR where you need it by limp-backraising or raising to abnormal sizes - both are the best way to get HU post.

The problem you face is that you don't have any sets on boards like this ever when you raise so the spot seems stoopid to you - as if some mistake was made preflop.

I'll let G let us know how often he has sets here. But even if he does some of the time, I don't think it's all that important. I'd also question exactly how wide we even want to be here; even with a $20 raise we'll have put in over 10% of stacks against the half stack gambooley limper (how wide should we be doing this?).

If I'm reading between all the lines right (correct me if I'm wrong), I think G is in this weird spot between my super nit preflop strategy as well as everyone's standard snap stack off postflop. I mean, I highly doubt anyone is going to come along and suggest not stacking off in this postflop spot (I'm stacking off on the flop, FWIW). And yet at the same time I think G realizes that's not going to work out great a lot of the time against 3 opponents.

And even if it does work out great for us enough of the time to be EV overall, my question would be whether we can do better. And I think we can.

GreadingbetweenthelinesG

No, actually. This is obv a call, imo. I posted it because of the speech and the timing, wondering what it does to people's view of V's range, as they were weird.

And I probably would have beaten you into the pot in your shoes (so I have no real problem with postflop).

But how do we feel about it overall? We offered 19+ IO overall to 3 opponents having gotten in just 6% of our stack preflop; we just shrug our shoulders if no good, consider it standard, and just the cost of doing business to protect our raising range / other possible results preflop?

The more moronic our opponents are who start showing up with lol TP or whatever lol stuff, the more this is going to be fine. The less of that there is, the more it becomes more questionable, imo.

GnotconvincedpreflopisawesomeG

Ya...

Like, usually speech equals perceived strength.

But this guy can't have KK+ as played.

He definitely could have 99, 66, 55, 65, 96s and 95s. But his quick action OTT basically eliminates these. When these types of hand improve in this way, usually folks respond initially with disbelief, which takes time.

So V's snap action generally means he was not even looking at the flop in real time.

My assessment is that V has AXss or other big XYss and is talking himself into the action that he finally takes... And therefore the speech isn't for Hero's sake.

What does any of this have to do with “protecting our raising range”? We’re doing this because it’s profitable.

Lmfao at $35 pre. Stop it.

He probably has QQ. He's thinking out loud of the hands he can beat and the hands he can't.

$35 pre is a bit comical really. Absolutely snapcall, likely to be beat some of the time or up against a draw/hand we dominate most of the time.

That is referring to my preference of raising larger preflop but G not liking this idea partly so he can raise more speculative hands to a more reasonable size / not have a sizing tell.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Grunch

call

gonna read the rest of the thread now

I'm currently embarking on this year's project at the table (if I have the stamina to keep it up, we'll see): keeping track of raise sizes preflop and how much action they get. I forgot to charge my phone after last night's test (I'm going to do 10 one hour sample sizes), but I know off the top of my head that one guy got down to lol shortstack tournament shove strategy and shoved like $75 and $100 x 3 over the hour, didn't get action only once, and once went 3ways to the flop. And there were a bunch of big raises that easily got action. And I didn't even do my test during the period where the action group sat down at the table.

It's a big disagreement I have with this forum, but people at LLSNL didn't come to the casino to fold their BBJ 76s. If you think there's any significant difference in the loosest guy at the tables calling frequency (with a loose guy behind him who's limped in) between $20 and $30 or whatever at a typical loose LLSNL 1/3 NL table, then we greatly disagree.

GoutofstepwiththeforumG

To be fair, there's good reasons to make it $35 pre. Like if they're going to inelastically call $35 at the same rate as $20. But if our goal of raising is never to get value/action, then we might as well not look at our cards and just click buttons.

This is what my whole argument is based around.

If you don't agree with this statement, then obviously do something different. But I believe the above statement is correct (and most certainly correct when you amend "same rate" with "pretty much the same rate").

GimoG

You two win the Kewpie dolls
But I think these answers make sense to me. This is what I thought was most likely real time.

Really surprised that he flatted QQ to a single raise from the BB, and that he made such a small donk with it OTF, but the response to my raise makes perfect sense with QQ.

Huzzah!

I always wanted a kewpie doll..yay.

So one of your worse flop raises found one of his best calls. Legit stackoff, NH.

One of the mistakes we sometimes make is thinking that unsophisticated players think along the same lines we do. (Not that I'm that sophisticated myself. I think my next screen name will be, slightly above average!)

Of course he flatted, he was probably thinking, " this guy probably has AK, I'll just flat and if no A or K hits, I can donk and win the pot. "
Or something along those lines, how would I know!

Speedy timings are probably slightly weighted toward bluffs, especially from a bad LAG, but speeches are strength so often, regardless of content, that they probably cancel each other out.

seems like an odd way to trap an overpair. call.

so he had QQ? and he snap donk shoved the turn for a pot sized bet when a scare card hit the turn? trying to make it look like a bluff and to get called by 88 - JJ for value? oh yuck.

I don't think it was a trap. I think he'd decided he was committed when he called flop and shoved turn hoping for some FE and to make sure he couldn't change his mind when I shoved it

He swore loudly when I called, then looked relieved when I showed and celebrated a lot when he held.