OP, you say BB is a TAG?

What range of hands does be c-bet 1/2PSB on a draw heavy board into two opponents?

Shoving is certainly an option. I believe it results in us winning the $100 in the pot fairly often. I'm feeling a little greedier though. I can see this possibly going 3 way all in ott if we are willing to eat the variance a bit.

I'm a bit intrigued with utg's action. Did he flop a combo draw and is unsure if he wants to commit or a set and he's trapping? The latter seems less likely as if expect a raise more often on this board. Obv we block top and middle so only 1 each of those and 3 combos 33 for a total of 5 combos of sets.

The PFR cbetting 1/2 pot into 3 players as a decent tag suggests he has flopped some equity. Our pf read and his smallish sizing on a low wet board suggest he does not have an overpair. Perhaps AQcc or something along those lines.

It seems to me any raise more than a click back and less than a shipperdoodle is going to make SPR ******edly low ott.

I'm thinking of clicking it up maybe just over min like $60 which will leave us $130 ish to jam into 220 if called on 2 spots and 130 into 170 if called in 1 spot.

If utg is trapping with a set we will hear from him obv but it's possible utg and BB are sharing clubs also.

I don't mind laying an attractive price here in hopes of committing one or both to call a turn shove. I'm also committed to calling a shove by the BB. Not feeling quite as good about a backraise shove by utg will evaluate if that happens. In the event we get a bad turn and get shipped into we can fold turn as we will only be getting 3:1 vs 1 player or 4:1 vs 2.

By contrast, a raise to 80 if called by 2 vs would leave $110 to ship into 290. Or if it gets 1 fold 110 into 210. I feel like 80 gets us at least 1 fold a lot and sometimes 2. When this bet gets called we will be getting a better price when v ships bad turns and a fold is going to be more difficult even though we will not be getting odds to boat.

I like a small raise to $60 or $65

I can't run the EV calcs of these scenarios right now but it might be interesting to model with some assumptions about FE.

Cam, is the smallish raise so we are not putting in >33% of our stack, ergo not pot committed? Then on non club turns our equity goes way up so we can ship with the best of it?

If we thought big pairs were a large portion of the BB's range, could we just call the flop because we expect him to bet the turn? On non club turns this effectively traps UTG. After we shove, pot would be like $400 and $163 to call.

This reminds me of the ''call flop and raise safe turns'' line from LHE.

There aren't that many brick turns. I just cram it all in there on the flop.

Yup, flop shove looks best in this spot. It's barely more than a pot-sized shove, and it looks the bluffiest. If we're going to raise to an amount that's not all-in, then I'd much prefer to just flat and get it in on good turns. IMO:

Shove >>>>>> Flat and shove good turns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Raise less than all-in

I am sticking with your sheet image logic. This is a shove. You are going to be looked up often. This in combination with a really wet board.

I'm not married to any "percent of stack" limitation but IF we choose not to shove we do need to think if we will be left calling off later when draws come in. Since our equity for filling up is poor we need to try and avoid this situation or villains will be effectively free rolling for the balance of our stack.

Obv shipping avoids any difficult decisions.

I don't really like getting zero additional value by flatting since we could be as much as a 50-70% equity favorite but IF even a discounted number of sets (like one combo of 33) are in utg range our equity may be 40/40 vs his range. Keep in mind button is solid and hasn't acted so he's obv uncapped.

A small bet does also reopen the action giving the bb a chance to ship and giving utg one more chance to spazz or him and the btn both a chance to cap their range.

A follow up note on Hero's image. Op says he may appear frustrated but probably no one notices except maybe bb. I think this is being a little overstated as a reason to shove for value. And in fact if it's only bb that likely is aware of the frustration factor an inducing raise would be more effective against the top of his range which is JJ TT AQcc.

I hate this game.

Hero got himself into the exact situation he wanted everybody else to be in. Very wet board and hero has a hand that's just good enough that he can't get away from it.

Problems:
1. BB is showing interest in the hand. A TAG would probably not bluff-cbet into three players on a board like this unless he had some decent equity. Hoping he's on something like JJ. Praying he isn't on a set.
2. UTG is showing a lot of interest in this board. He's still playing it passively; don't know if I like that or not. That greedy **** is probably hoping to drag everybody along.
3. BTN is on an capped range, possible he could like this flop too but at least he has a fold button.

Shove and start digging for your ATM card.

I think he cbets >90% of his range.

The sizing is small tho.

I'm torn between $90 and a shove.

I'll be surprised if BB shows up with anything after that ridiculous c-bet. IDK if UTG calls a shove with hands like 99 and TT.

Stack sizes really suck here. The more I think about the turn, the more I think WJ94 is right here to just ship.

@Lapidator: That's cool but it doesn't really change the dynamic given his likely range.

Only reason to call is, if you really want to see some more cards. I don't think you do. I could see how a non-club A or K could help, but there are what, 19 cards in the deck that shut you down. Agree you can't fold here. Tell em, yall hungry? Welcome to the buffet. In fact, I would actually say that. (Helps if you imagine that coming out of Mr. Rogers' face, with his voice.)

At this point it is a shove. If someone has a set, we're losing our stack anyway. The draws need 2:1 and will get close to it now. Any raise or call will leave the situation where a missed draw shouldn't continue on the turn.

The only reason to call is if you are planning to win the least possible.

I'm in the shove flop camp - way way way too many turn cards that are bad for us, and given our image, we can get looked up way lighter than we'd think.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~UPDATE

Here's where I really screw up this hand...

In real time, I was sure I was going to stack off with this hand. So I decided to put out a smallish raise here and see how many opponents I could ensnare. The more I think about this hand, the more I realize that shoving is correct (and not just because of the LOL results).

Hero fiddles with some chips for 10 seconds, says, "raise", then slides out 3 green birds for $75.

Button folds.

BB watches Hero for 10-15 seconds and calls.

UTG takes a bit longer, but also calls.

Action Turn ($278) 8 7 3 9

BB checks, UTG checks.

Hero (with $113 left ) ... ?

I think its pretty obvious we're not folding so I'll just finish it here. Hero shoves.

BB calls immediately. UTG takes 10-15 seconds and calls.

River is 3. BB and UTG both check. Hero pukes, then wipes the puke off his cards and shows his hand.

BB shows TT

UTG shows his hand, even though he doesn't have to. K8s. (Wow! )

Well which one? Normal and standard are the same thing.

Eff stacks divided by the bet isn't quite IO. IO is [nearly] guaranteed money V will put in from behind when you hit your hand.

Why is this a peril? A peril in this hand is playing 87 only because it's suited (right?, you're not even thinking about 87o?) and the times you hit the flush you only get paid by a better flush. That's a peril. Is someone preventing you from topping off if you don't win the hand?

Also don't know why you only top off otb.

What is normal for me is not necessarily the standard line.


So there are guarantees in poker? huh...

I thought it was called implied odds, because there is an implication that you could win this much.

Maybe we should call it guaranteed odds?


I only top up on the button. Position naturally degrades as you move from hand to hand. So after losing the N hand, I don't particularly want to top off for the N+1 hand in degraded position.

Under the right circumstances I'll play > 50% of hands... so yes, 87o would be considered.

BTW... please find another thread to troll. You're not adding anything of value here.

I know I was hard on the hand, but frankly a good PAHWM requires multiple mistakes to be even remotely interesting. This was a good PAHWM.

Your read was correct about the table. None of them respected you at all and were willing to go the distance with TP or a slight OP. That's one of the up sides when you do have a hand when you're running bad. You're going to be paid off extremely light.

Still an oxy moron.

Do you think I randomly hit eight keys and they happened to be [-n-e-a-r-l-y-]?

There is an implication of winning it, you're definition for implication (just like your definition of normal or standard) is off though. To you it seems to mean the ideal outcome, or just possible. You need strong reasoning to expect winning it, eff stacks isn't quite enough.

Also, you're not even discussing frequencies. "I'm getting 19.8:1 IO." That can't be the end of the reasoning. You need to compare it to how often you hit. If you fold otf 99% of the time and win ai 1% of the time, 19.8:1 implied isn't close to enough.

Your judgement and skill should be the defense against losing because of poor position. If you were positionally unaware, not topping off except otb would be a mechanism preventing poor position from hurting you.

LOL at thinking that judgement and skill is the "defense" against positional disadvantage. They minimize the disadvantage, not negate it.

FWIW, I usually also wait until LP to top up.

It would certainly improve the quality of your posts.

Grunch: Limp pre is fine. Calling the raise is close. Shoving the flop AINEC.

I agree. I said it was a defense, I didn't say it made you impregnable.

A tighter opening range in EP than MP, that's a defense.