Ok, I have questions about this hand, because it doesn't seem to really fit into the categories of "Did you bet for value or as a bluff?" 1/2 NL. Effective stacks are a bit over 300. I'm obviously a reg, but I've been on a run of cold cards and haven't played anything in ages.

Limper limps because he plays all sorts of things like that. Tight kid raises to 12. I call with 88, Fish calls in the cutoff, and limper calls.

Flop($45): J23

Totally rainbow board here. Limper checks, PFR bets small $22. I call. Limper calls.

Turn($110):J23 6. Quickly checks to me. I bet $75.

Ok, 45 just got there, but that's a small part of the limpers EP limping range. I think he could have a hand like JT or maybe even a mid pocket pair like me. I don't know if he would raise TT. The PFR really has nothing in his range, JJ+, AJ would have bet bigger on the flop. His range is something like AK, AQ, TT, 99. I called this as a float, I wasn't really interested in the value of my hand (and is that a mistake?)

So I think I have the best hand here a portion of the time, but I'm also behind a lot of my two opponents range and they both have quite a bit of equity against me. I am planning on betting 170+ on the river if I get a live read that they aren't slow playing something huge. Their range is super capped and I am repping 22/33/JJ here almost exclusively.

What do you do with 88 on that brick of a turn?

There is a third reason to bet and it is to protect your equity. You can do it here by betting less in the turn. Bet 50 on the turn. You protect your hand from over cards and you can get value from worse.

I would not turn my hand into a bluff at this level unless I knew V very well. I don't assume he will fold just because they are tight pre.

I'd advocate raising PF to $30.

Re raise flop. This isolates the bettor, and hopefully CO folds and you're heads up in position. Flatting just gives the fish In CO a reason to ride along. 88 plays better Heads up with a tighter player. Personally, I'd would've re-raise to $60 to $65 on flop, instead of Flatting.

As played bet the turn. $75 is fine. You're still ahead most of the time.

Grunch: this is why being out of relative position sucks.

I understand why you called the flop, but after the limper overcalls, your hand is basically trash. What could he possibly have called with after you call? The only legitimate draw, 54, just got there. Meanwhile he has a ton of Jx combos in his range. I'm checking back this turn, and if the limper bets the river, I'm going to fold. I'll also sometimes fold if the raiser bets, depending on the river.

I think this is too complicated a play multi-way at 1/2. Vernon's point about the fish's overcall is very apt. If you have to make a play, raise flop.

Just keep not playing, or quietly fold the flop! It's much more profitable than bluffing a stack (150bb to be precise!) to a fish who is going to call you down with top pair. This was a really boring and hard lesson for me to learn, but when you can just save this play for when you beat top pair, it will feel really good.

Why are you betting? i.e. are you protecting your hand, are you betting for value, are you bluffing, etc.

Have to pot control the turn IMO, although I can also see an argument for betting turn and checking back river. If we get called on the turn it's very unlikely we're going to get a fold on the river.

I also think you're only examining the very very top of their range, and you're assuming they put you on the top of your range as well. For instance, if you believe the limper is going to limp a lot of random hands like 54, why won't he limp with A3/43/53 as well? And it's unlikely that once he hits a pair he's just going to fold to one bet (cause he can hit two pair obv).

I also think it's very unlikely either of them puts you on a set in this spot. Which is why sometimes just waiting for the set is a lot more profitable lol.

No need to turn our hand into a bluff here, since doing so only induces action from hands that have us crushed and creative plays that can blow us off of the hand.

I think this is a pretty good board for 88, and we can safely put in a smallish thin valuebet ($50?) to induce calls from overs/fds with a plan to get to showdown ie. checking back all non-8 rivers. If we get a read on the limper that tells us he always has Jx then we can go after it on the river, but I'm not sure I like this play in 3-handed pots @ $1/2.

I think $50>checking>$75.

If we are betting here because we think that we have the best hand a large portion of the time, we are betting primarily to deny the correct odds for and two random over cards to out draw us.

From your description it sounds like 77/55 are not that likely in villains range. So, that means we can bet pretty small here. Something along the lines of $45-$50. This lays an attractive 155:45 or 160:50 price for V to call us, but he only has ~12% to win the hand. It also means that we can pay off small river bets when we are unsure about where we stand (anything less than $100 on all river high cards as our V still made a mistake in calling our $50 as he only stood to win $260, so he was only getting ~5.2:1 on a 6 out draw.

Betting $75 reduces his ability to float us on the turn, and doesn't really gain us anything over betting $50. If we do bet smaller and we get a call, be more cautious of river s though as if he has two overs and two s then the 3.2:1 price the we offered for his 15 out draw is about the right price + any IO that he might have.

Hmm. Tight player is leading into 3 opponents from oop after raising pre. Unless you have a bet sizing tell, my default is to fold on the flop - you end up in very weird situations on the turn w vulnerable hands w little chance of improvement.

Betting the turn might be ok, if you think you can get the limper to fold. You might need to shove the river if another low card comes and only the tight player calls.

Woah! No way.

A loose limper is in the pot and you prefer to play heads up vs a tight player w 88 in a 3bet pot? I think that's a terrible idea unless your goal in poker is to win pots and not money.

Actually, I change my answer.

Checking down and folding vs bets from either player is probably best.

I don't think we get the loose player to fold a J. If he floated w some other bs hand, we'll win at SD anyway. Tight player likely has overs, and is unlikely to attempt a random river bluff. Don't be surprised to lose to 99-TT either.

I do have a bet sizing tell. He bet 22 into a 48 dollar flop. He doesn't have a hand and was just cbetting. He has decent equity with two overs. The top of the limpers range is a hand like JT. They both have hugely capped ranges and are never getting the money in at all here. I feel like giving up on a $100 pot or checking it down to see 99/TT beat us is just wasting huge money.

My main question was if I should have bet smaller to get called by worse (or even better hands that are going to fold my river bet) and then bomb any brick to fold out the entirety of their range. Sure I'm going to get rivered a non trivial percentage of the time, but I feel like I can identify those cards and check it back a ton when I'm behind. Limper villain is never bluffing river.

You're contradicting yourself here. If you're trying to get called on the turn, why don't you bet to get called again on the river (or check behind if it's likely you have the best hand)?

It is not a contradiction. When he gets called on turn he puts V on range of Jx, TT/99 and hands he beats. When he gets to the river, if he checks it back he loses to a large portion of that range. He feels that bombing river folds out all of that range.

This is a play that a lot of good players make, but I would be hesitant to do it at this level because to many players will get sticky with Jx and call river bomb.

We see it all the time. A seemingly thinking player accurately hand reads V and puts a huge bet in on the river, then the fishy villain tank calls because that is what fish do. Then the thinking player says "how could you call with that?"

He changes his reasons for betting on the turn and on the river (contradicting may not be the right word).

Ott he is betting to get called. So when V calls we're suddenly way behind so we change our plan to bluff our way out of it? I completely disagree that this is a play that a lot of good players make, because the line doesn't make sense unless we slowplayed a monster otf or the turn gave us two pair. I check/call with a J here as well if I feel hero is going to try and bet his way out of it, especially since he probably raises a set otf.

Perhaps original poster is asking if he should try to 2 barrel a limper off Jx. I don't recommend it wo some amazing read.

Why are we talking about bombing 170 on the river with a fish still in the pot?

Look, it's true that there are spots where you can certainly profitably bet on the turn, without the best hand, with the expectation of being called once but not twice. Such turn bets are roundabout value bets whose purpose is to build up a bigger pot to bluff on the river, while potentially helping to build a consistent narritave for a river bluff.

I just fail to see how this is one of those spots. There is a fish still in the hand and if he has us beat, it's unlikely he's folding. Embracing complex concepts like the above is all well and good, but not if it comes at the expense of the basic rules, such as don't bluff the ****ing fish.

A small turn bet for pure value is, I think, fine here. The fish can derp with lots of crappy draws / bizarre one-pair hands and it feels like the opener has given up. When that river comes I think we look up the definition of "showdown value" with the expectation that we'll have value-owned ourselves on the turn a non-zero, but far from high, percentage of the time. If both players call our turn bet we check because we've given up.

Beyond that I call FPS.