I don't think you should- V1, at least, is described as spewy, so I wouldn't out you in his shoes. That is, we are not trying to exploit the play of a good lag, but a bad spewer. Against a good lag, that changes the game dramatically. V2 being in the hand makes it a little more complicated, however, he's going to be hampered by V1 being in the hand, so his ability to exploit us is reduced quite a bit.

It is true that there are some second best hands he'll call with, but he'll value bet those the whole way as well so it's not like we gain a ton by raising him (though we do get control of the hand, granted). Either way, there are a lot more hands in his lower range that he will fold if we raise, but he may stick more money into the pot with if we call. A raise certainly raises the quality of his range while making the pot bigger- with what is essentially a bluff catcher that's pretty dangerous territory.

So I'll give you not ALL worse hands fold, but quite a lot of them do.

In the end, a lot of this stuff is player dependent. Against a good LAG I'm pretty much never calling with this hand OOP pre (raise or fold), but against a spewy bad player, catching TPGK and letting him spew is my default plan.

I've made a lot of good money with a c/c line against spewy players.

II have made good money with a c/c line against spewers as well. Good point that he is a bad lag, not a good one.

I think having a 2nd player in changes the dynamic. More outs against you, more opportunities to be bluffed as OOP against two (one of whom is good), and a significantly larger pot. V2 can be lighter than normal due to V1 rep.

Interesting spot. Agree on player dependent

So, what the hell is the EV of just letting V1 spew? If we let him bet $55 on turn/river, we win (215+55+55)*.84*.75=$200, lose 150*(1-.84*.75), so EV at worst is $140 (it's better since sometimes like in the hand we get away from 2nd best on the turn). I'm taking worst case of giving V1 OESD and V2 two pair/trips draw, so .84*.90~.75 of neither getting there on the turn, then V2 folding, leaving V1 with 16% to beat us on river at best when we call.

If we c/r to $175 as recommend, I'm assuming if V1/V2 shoves to the c/r to $175 we fold instead of praying to see QJ/9T if we call? 215x-175(1-x)>140. x has to be bigger than 80%. They have to both fold more than 80% of the time when we c/r.

Then again this doesn't count the times we only get called/fold best hand to a shove/end up spewing on turn into a set.

tl;dr Seems like c/c all 3 streets best line depending on V2 is best, no?

I think the preflop call is fine because Hero will likely have relative position on the flop when spewtard V1 cbets.

On the flop, I believe we are very likely ahead of both players ranges.

We can assume spewtard V1 is cbetting his entire range which on this flop we now crush, so that's easy.

Therefore I believe our decisions should be based more on what good player V2 has. Surely V2 know knows V1 is cbetting 100%, so his calling range is far wider than AJ+ here.

V2's range includes anything that has caught a piece of that flop, including flopped top or middle pair, some middling pocket pairs, some weak straight draws, possibly some overcard/backdoor floats, and of course some monsters (sets).

V2 will flat all that figuring he can find out cheaply what Hero has, knowing that his flat on this flop will look strong to Hero. He expects Hero to mostly go away, leaving him HU in position with the fish, and with Hero's donation in the middle. Or if he has something like middle pair or a draw, he's happy to have Hero tag along without putting pressure on him.

If we just call, we are going to lose our temporary good positional advantage, and we haven't clarified the dangerous V2's hand strength at all, and we may be letting him outdraw us for free.

Given that, I think a raise is preferable. Mostly what happens is we win the pot without further contest, but that's certainly not a disaster with a middling strength hand.

Raising and getting reraised by V2 is also not a disaster. When we checkraise here, he has to give us credit for at least the hand strength we have. So if he then shoves it's nearly certain he has us crushed (lone exception is maybe T9 that decides pot is too big to fold). If he has us that crushed, and we had stayed in and "improved" it may well have cost us our whole stack. So if he reraises, we easily fold.

Raising and getting reraised by V1 is also not a disaster... vs him we get it in. Sure he has us beat sometimes, but... a spewtard who raises and catches a piece of this flop is not going to fold a bunch of hands that we do beat. There are a lot more combos of QJ, JT, J9, T9, A8, or even some gutshot draws like 97 or 67 that someone who is described as "in total gamble mode" will not fold. We also have some dead money buffer and drawing power if he happens to have woken up with an overpair or AJ or J8.

So... I would raise/get it in vs spewtard V1 and fold vs good V2.

yeh this makes sense we should raise to see where we're at against v2

Fascinating thread - and two groups of what looks (to me) to be experienced, competent players, advocating two very different lines. What's a relative noob like me supposed to think?

Here's the thing: Threads on 'KK UTG' or 'AK vs nit' or 'AA on button reraised' etc are interesting but not that useful: Mainly because those spots simply don't come up all that often. Once a session if we're really really lucky? But flopping TPTK OOP? That happens all the time - which means noobs have the opportunity to misplay this type of hand dozens of times a night. Those mistakes add up.

Here's what my initial thinking was: On the flop, we hit TPTK and we have a backdoor flush draw. I mean, isn't that -exactly- what we wanted when we decided to play KJs OOP? If I can't raise this flop, should I even be playing KJs OOP? We have TPTK; right now it's probably the best hand but unlikely to improve. I'd rather just win the pot now.

But reading some of the counter-arguments has also been very educational. And this particularly made a lot of sense to me:

This flop isn't all that coordinated, so straight draws aren't -that- scary yet. Plus, I have the second nuts flush draw if another heart hits. And TPTK is just one pair. Small hand = small pot.

At least until this thread, I feel pretty certain that I would have check/raised the flop and folded to any aggression on the turn. I'm now wondering if I should be playing these spots a bit differently on loosely-connected flops.

To be clear... it's the presence of a third player, the good V2, that's causing all the dissent. Good players make things complicated, especially when they have position!

If it was just spewtard V1 in the hand and Hero had position I suspect virtually everyone would agree that flat calling is best.

lead out on the flop.

I'd lead for about $45 or $50.

You'll take it down most of the time. Win $50, move on. No reason to check here... unless villains are c-betting a ****load and you want to check/raise for value.

I still think bet > check/raise

Agree with this. Also agree with what Chalupa says about if you raise and V2 shoves, then can find a fold (which is almost certainly less expensive than calling the next 2 streets with the losing hand).

I do a lot of c/c against spewy players, so if V1 is the only one in the pot, I might very well take that line.

However, reading the OP again-"V1 is in total gamble mode"-I MIGHT actually c/r still if V1 is only in pot (definitely depends upon situation/reads).

If V1 is only V, then I could go either way. However, a V in "total gamble mode" is calling a c/r with weaker hands, so I might still go that route (although becomes a LOT closer without V2 in the pot)

Against 2 opponents, esp. the ones in the OP, while OOP-I would argue that pretty much most boards are "scary". You don't know what you want to hit on turn. OOP against a spewer and a good player where you don't know what cards are clean does not = a good situation.

I think this thread makes clear it's very hero dependent. How comfortable are you with the possible paths you can take? I'm okay with a c/c here because we're pretty much playing the same game the BTN villain is and if we start firing on the turn we're gonna know really quickly where he stands. Spewing player will come along no matter what so we could bet really thin here and not be in a bad spot.

I'm not scared of villain on the BTN, he's calling there with a wide range of cards looking to hit on the turn. I might remove some air here because he's probably aware of the spewing loose player and the lack of fold equity. The other villain is betting a huge range right?

It might also come down to how we appear to the villains at the time.

What's obvious from the responses is you need to be careful. If you're okay with doing some "thin" maneuvers you have to be ready for the variance that comes with it.

I would like to clarify a couple of things.

Im not scared to lose money, I will ship the marbles in marginal spots, However I do find myself calling more then betting, and even I know that is tuuuuurible, but yet I do it all the time.

I am not concerned at all by Villian 1, I do feel that if I were heads up against this guy its check call all day.

Villian 2 is the person of interest,

After reading the comments, I do feel that check-raising the flop would be the most appropriate line, I was thinking of this in game but couldnt pull the trigger.

Villian 2 views me a uber tight, so by check-raising the flop on a board like this screams set. This should get 2 snap folds and if there is any further resistance by either villian i know im crushed and i can get away from the hand.

But would I not then be turning my hand into a bluff ? It shouldnt matter that I have TPGK, I could make this play with any 2 cards because I am seeking 2 folds.

+1

in my experience, live spewtards rarely fire 3 barrels themselves - this isn't one of the lines that makes them a spewtard. they might do dumb stuff when someone else bets, like turn their top pair into a bluff and jam the flop or turn over someone else's bet, or pot it on the turn after calling a cbet with middle pair on the flop - these are the type of spewtardish lines they take, but not 3-barreling. if you call down here, you will find yourself scratching your head wondering how this lame actually had it that time.

Anybody like donking out at this flop for like 75, we likely have the best hand and a ch/r in this multiway pot is so strong that we are never getting called with a weaker holding.

Meh. What you gonna do? You are c/r the flop for value against 2 light ranges. If those ranges change due to their corresponding action after you c/r, then you take that information and make a new decision-In my case, probably call V1 and fold V2. Sometimes new information comes to light which changes your line.

Also, MUCH better than c/c the whole way and either winning the minimum with the best hand or getting stacked when they hit/held a better hand.

I don't. Let the spewer fire a bet. Remember, we don't know V2 is going to call V1s bet until he actually does.

I could be wrong here.

I think playing with a multiway pot thinking about what the spewer will do is a mistake

Time for result.

this is a huge argument and i think my 1st post was kinda bad so I'll post my logic. I understand why people advocate c/r as awful as it does turn your hand into a bluff vs v2 BUT it still has value vs villain 1 IMO. this squeeze will put v2 in a horrible situation as well narrowing his range to basically sets+. Villain 1 however will call or r/r w/ worse a good % of the time making it a value raise vs him. If we c/c here we have to check the turn and get fired at by villain 1 and v2 will think he's good w/ basically everything... his entire flatting range OTF will continue and possibly r/r OTT making you have to fold way too much for c/c to be profitable. I hate "raising to know where your at" as much as the next guy but OOP like this being passive gives up way too much initiative and narrows your options to only situations where you can not win the pot... minus a miracle.

Best line OTF c/r and give up if v2 doesn't get out as he will never proceed w/ worse IMO. Stack off if just you and villain 1. 205+ is a big enough raise IMO to get v2 out even if v1 flats

Not to sound like every other response in this forum but I think I would fold pre. As played I think there is also case to be made for leading. I think betting is best bc check folding is too weak and raising a cbet and a caller (who is good) is spew imo. Leading let's spewtard spaz leading to button folding all hands that we beat or if button raises we can comfortably fold. If spewtard folds and button calls then we reevaluate turn maybe bet /fold turn. Thoughts?

This is kind of what I was tHinking, I mean if the table is tough then I hate leading but versus a weak table I like it

pre is fine, although I don't mind either folding or squeezing. I think you can advocate a fold if this spot makes you confused, and certainly playing OOP does make your life harder.

On the flop - OP I think your image is perfect for a flop c/c although I think you should c/f after V2 calls without the bdfd. Play your hand on the flop like you would play sets - you are c/c-ing your sets on this board too, right? (I think c/r-ing a set here with given dynamic is pretty horrible, since V1 will barrel off very often).

With your image I don't expect V2 to peel the turn light after the flop call so the turn is a c/f if V2 continues without hitting the bdfd. In fact when someone with your image overcalls this particular super-dry flop OOP I immediately put you on 2p+/set/overpair and the most common turn action is check / check / check. However if V1 is a maniac he is going to fire the turn again and if V2 is competent he cannot continue without a monster since your range is so strong.

So on turn c/f if V2 continues and c/c if not. River c/c again.

fwiw, SPR is a fairly useless concept in multiway pots...

i think many people are confusing laggy spewtard with call station. laggy spewtards bet too much and are overly aggressive in the wrong spots, that doesnt mean they call off stacks with absoltue crap. their betting ranges usually are super super wide and contain all of their value hands, showdown hands, and air. their calling ranges are usually not that wide.

Raising for information might make the hand easier to play but it's generally not a good idea.

Okay so this is what I was referring to in my last post. we need to think about what V2 is really flatting behind. I too believe his range is WAY wider then monsters and hands that have us beat. To that end, as played a check Raise is going to win us a nice size pot right on the flop. Personally, I think the button (if he is as good as you describe him) is peeling super wide.

Now bringing up a lead/donk is something I didn't really think of TBH. Now that it's been brought up I'd like to discuss it. This takes care of our V2 most likely no? If v1 calls with his worse hands v2 has to give us credit for something and it effectively handcuff's him/makes it much tougher for him to peel wider because he has to worry about a legitimate hand.