550 effective ; table is very loose passive; 2 guys on my left (utg1 mp1) are super loose passive and pretty bad

I open UTG 88 20 (image is loose, maybe tilty from stuck)
4 callers (utg1, mp, co, btn)
SB reg/tag $150
Hero?

Just want to hear different opinions...

Obviously folding is fine since we only have 20 invested

Is jamming ever right here, since this V can have every combo of AQo+, AJs+... or just unnecessary variance?

UTG, I'd limp, so that when someone raises, we can still setmine.

AP, fold. Don't think jamming is ever right here against a solid TAG. He has a top 6% hand here for sure, against which we have 36.7% equity, however that's assuming overcards are equally weighted with other cards in his range.

If his range skews to overpairs, then it's a simple nobrainer fold.

The amount you have invested is a sunk cost and as such is completely irrelevant to the decision at hand.

Fold. We have fold equity vs a few hands that you mentioned but we're never being called by a worse hand. Best case is being called by AK and flipping for $500. Probably jamming with TT+, AK. People don't play the SB nearly as aggressively as they should be in live games. Therefore I don't give him too many AQ and AJ.

Snap fold

If you jam 88 here you’re jamming way too many hands vs a guy that you dont have reads where he spazzes out/squeezes light

In a vacuum, yes...but variance is a real world aspect here. For instance, what if we are the sb here and have TT or JJ and utg jams? It's a breakeven call, but do you want the variance? Or open 77 and a gambly asian whale jams for 100BB?



I already mentioned this particular Villain is capable of squeezing with hands like AJs or AQ. So I do have reads that he squeezes light...especially with so much dead money...Just curious as to how the EV of jamming here can be that much worse than folding (-$20)?

Squeezing AQ isn’t that light, the cold callers tend to be pretty capped in general and shouldnt have too many strong hands, and people tend to open too much from UTG. I also dont think he 3b AJs/AQs at 100% frequency.

If you saw him squeeze hands like A5s/109s or hands as such I can get behind a jam but ap i just fold

Hard to say what the EV is. I dont know how often he folds AK/JJ-QQ. But you are getting snapped by 12 combos of KK/AA and are drawing super thin

And when he calls off JJ/QQ you’re drawing pretty thin too

I'm confused by your contradicting statements.

If people tend to open too much from UTG and there is so much dead money from the capped callers, shouldn't he bet 3betting a higher frequency? Why would he want to play KQo and AQo from the sb 5 ways instead of just scooping preflop?

Yes people tend to open too much from UTG but they also dont fold enough vs 3bets, and KQo vs the world from the SB as a 3b is generally not going to fare well.

If we give him JJ+, AJs+, AQo+ (which is pretty generous since we are giving full weight to AQo/AJs/AQs than say AA/KK but for simplicity/accounting for occasional spaz), we have a -EV shove

Our variance should be irrelevant to us if we are properly rolled for the game. What would be more relevant is how the variance will affect our opponent. However, our real concern in this spot is whether it is +EV or -EV.

Still, that doesn't have anything to do with this my comments on this statement:

How much money we have invested is completely irrelevant because that is no longer our money, it's the pot's. It only matters in so much as it changes the math in regards to how much is in the pot and how much more it is to call. However, whether we put the $20 in the pot or someone put $20 in for us does not change this spot one bit.

If prior to the hand being dealt we had taken a $100 bill out of our pocket and put it into the middle of the pot to "spice things up" our future decisions in the hand should not be based on the fact that we invested $100 into this pot. If someone else had been the one to put the $100 in the middle our decision points would be identical. Our investment is irrelevant as it is a sunk cost that can not be recovered. We should not be chasing spots where sunk costs are high nor should we be avoiding spots simply because sunk costs are low.