This hand was from a 2/3 game with a $200 cap at Crown Casino in Melbourne. Generally, the games on a Saturday evening are loose-passive and dominated by weekend recreationals and a few young hopefuls with pretensions to poker-stardom. I'm normally playing 2/5 and often suffer from entitlement tilt when playing 2/3 and can get spewy; before this hand, I had been playing for an hour or so, and was the most aggressive player pre-flop, raising mostly from position, c-betting occasionally but folding to aggression.

PLAYERS
S/B $220
B/B $325 Hero with 77 (LAGish)
UTG+1 $100
UTG+2 $140
UTG+3 $180
MP $300
C/O $150 (Aggro I get-to-play-once-a-month calling station)
B/N $200 (Rec who just sat down and hardly played a hand, seemed patient)

PREFLOP UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls, UTG+3 calls, MP folds, C/O calls, B/N calls, S/B complete and I decide to complete too, for if I squeeze I'm likely to get five callers, and don't like my chances post-flop.

FLOP (Pot $18) 1073

S/B checks, I bet $15 expecting a number of calls. The chance of being able to c/r this flop aren't great, as it was a passive table.

UTG+2 folds, UTG+3 calls, C/O calls, B/N calls, S/B calls.

TURN (Pot $93) 6

S/B checks and I feel I should bet here for value. I'm only behind 89 in my mind or possibly 45. Many hands call: & draws, pair with a gutter (109, 108), most top pairs. There's also a chance a two-pair will raise or maybe a combo draw (less likely on 2/3), in which case I'm happy to get my stack-in, although a straight will probably raise too. I could rep weakness and check, which I would often do on 2/5 OOP into a multiway pot, but on this 2/3 table I sense it will likely be checked behind.

Should I bet this TURN and if so what's the best sizing?

Something I often do on the flop in small pots is over bet so I can start building a pot with a strong hand. If your villains are loose passive calling stations as most live rec players are, I reason that you could bet 20 or 25 and get called just as easily as you could with the $15 bet. Still I don't think anyone could fault your flop bet.

As played, these villains range is much wider than 89 or 45. I wouldn't be surprised if 1 or more had a FD, 1 had a naked T, and one had a stubborn mid pocket pair.

I bet for value here. 60-75 sounds right. This sets us up to shove most non diamond rivers.

5 handed on turn? prob bet somewhere around half pot like $50 get players with draws out

This is one of those spots where I just forge ahead with a 'well if I'm behind it's a cooler' attitude. You will be behind a not insignificant time, but of course you can get lucky when you are. There are enough times where you'll get it in very good to make it a no brainer to be trying to get your chips in.

I think you bet to charge the 38 million potential draws that are out there, maybe $75, and be happy--but not thrilled--pretty much whatever the outcome.

Think you have to bet more than this to cut down on other player's implied odds, cos it's gonna be hard to fold this on the river if we do get out-drawn.

Granted the turn bet is pretty straightforward, so I do bet $65. UT+3 folds, C/0 tanks for a bit and begrudgingly folds. Then B/N tanks, looks at his stack of $180, contemplates a raise, before going all-in. With two flush draws out there, a made straight (most probably 89 or maybe 45) makes this move. So, I'm sitting on a set with 10 outs or a little less than 20% equity to a clear winning hand. However, I'm calling 120 into 340, getting worse than 3:1 pot odds. Is it bad to fold here, or are there other hands, apart from a straight, that I beat? Keep in mind, I don't have much info on the Villain.

The overbet is absolutely the way to go here. Even with it being a PSB, 15 is offering WAY too high implied odds to a big field with a pretty wet flop. To make a 15 bet correct here we'd have to be unwilling to put more than 50 more in if we get outdrawn. Given our hand that's unlikely.

Eh, some weird stack sizes going on here. You either want to pot the turn and call any shove or bet like 1/2 pot and bet/fold against the bigger stacks who might have hit the straight.

In a box I'd just pot it and call any shove.

You have to call here. You need 26% equity for the call to be EV neutral and you currently have (assuming he doesn't have TT) 22.7% equity. If villains range is TT/33/98 you have 30 percent equity making this a +EV call.

I'm not too concerned about stack sizes here in a multi-way pot - it's a consideration, but one that receives less weight. I'm betting ~$70 and just looking to get it in. No one has more than 100BBs to start the hand and you get called by all kinds of worse hands.

I'm looking to get it in. If someone has a straight you have full house draw (obv)

I don't mind the pot size bet either. If I made it $90, then I would snap the AI (as I would only need to put another $90 into $360, giving me 4:1). My reason for making it $65 was to entice a call from the C/O, who was calling light on a lot of hands. Given no-one was more than 100BB deep, I thought I could tweak a little more value from my set.

Of course, over-potting flop may have made the turn play easier. If I bet $25 on flop, pot would be $140, in which case I could have bet, say, $110, so when B/N shoves, it's a snap, once again. Keep in mind that there's a chance I may have received fewer callers with an over-pot bet on the flop, and therefore the pot size may have been pretty much the same ($90 for two callers/$115 for three). But overall I agree with the strategy, for I would much rather be playing a four-way pot of $115 than a five-way pot of $90 on such a wet board.

Effective stacks are 73 BB. This is a no brainer. Just bomb the pot. Bet like $100. There are tons of worse hands that will call, and you make FDs pay through the nose to hit. If someone has the straight, you still have good equity.

BTW, I'm also in favour of overbetting the flop. If you bet near the pot and expect several callers from a passive table, then adjust your bet sizing. Bet whatever it takes to thin the field. That's why you're playing No Limit, not Pot Limit.

Bet $50 into $18 if you have to. Would you rather bet $15 and get 4 callers or bet $50 and get two?

One last thing. Just to nitpick, CO can't be both "aggro" and a "calling station" at the same time. They're totally opposite things.

I appreciate the nitpick. I'm curious, because I often see these player types as merged, especially when I play LAG. It's probably my understanding of "aggro": I mean it in the way these players seem determined to beat when you keep raising. A passive just sighs and folds, but these guys stubbornly call and often donk when they think you've missed a flop. Does this mean C/O is just a "calling station"? I always thought calling-stations were ultimately passive, and to me C/O wasn't this at all (I wouldn't be triple barrelling this guy, for instance)?

This is way off the mark.

Lots of lags make a habit of calling down light. For some that's actually a winning strategy because it's based on solid reads. Some though will get too optimistic if they think someone is taking them on and will make hopeless call downs. Enough different spots come up in poker that you can quite easily combine a aggressive play with a tendency to make loose call downs.

As for this hand, between two pairs, lower sets, combo draws and the like I think you easily have enough value to call.

I understand the confusion.

To me, an Aggro is someone who bets/raises/folds more than checks/calls.

A Station is someone who checks/calls the vast majority of the time. But they rarely fold because they want to see a showdown. When they raise, you need a monster to play back.

An Aggro is going to make life miserable for you postflop and put you in so many tough spots. He's raise or c/r his draws instead of calling, he'll raise certain flops that he thinks you didn't connect with, he'll bluff-raise you and he'll raise his monsters. It's tough to know where you're at and he forces you to have a hand.

By contrast, a Station is someone who flops BP on a wet board and calls three barrels. Or he has KK on an A-high flop and calls to showdown. Even combo draws aren't good enough to raise. It's just call, call, call for Stations.

That's not to say Aggros don't call. This is where the confusion begins. They do. But they do so with a plan to steal or raise you later on. They might call your raise pre and call your CB with air, but that's just a standard float since everyone CBs after they raise. But they're going to see what you do on the turn. If you check, they'll bet. If you bet, they might raise and put you in a tough spot. They might call turn and pound you on the river. But there's almost always an aggressive action at the end. And that's in direct contrast to a Station.

Hope this clarifies. It's up to you to decide what your villain is. If he's a Station, then don't bluff him. Just value-bet him instead. If he's Aggro, then either tighten up or fight fire with fire.

That is an incredibly 2-dimensional perspective on player types.

I can see why you were confused by my use of Aggro now. In the end, the C/O was a Calling Station according to your definition. In your view, Aggro aren't ultimately passive, as the above suggests. However, if a player is floating flop with the intention of bluffing you OTT or OTR, then I'm not sure if this is Aggro, as it seems like a premeditated strategy. I would have thought that Aggros tend to play street-by-street and aren't really sophisticated enough to plan hands.