In a 75-150 mixed game, eight-handed, I’m the bring in with 4h3d2c.

The person against whom this unusual line is taken is an aggressive winning player (AWP) whose greatest weakness is that once he puts bets into the pot, he’s not likely to fold, except in the most bleak of situations. He comes from a limit hold em background. I have never seen him limp into a Stud 8 pot as first in. I have seen him play some rough stud-eight hands. A five, a six and an eight folded, then AWP completes with an 8c.

The big-action player (BAP) around whom this game is partially built has an A showing. The BAP, when losing isn’t folding anything that has any chance of winning. BAP overvalues big pairs, and isn’t folding aces unless someone has trips on board. BAP raises to $150. I make it $225, AWP calls and BAP caps.

On fourth street, BAP catches an off-suit K and leads into my 2c 7d and AWP’s 8c 9s. Now its certain that BAP has a pair of Aces. My line here has always been to raise, play for low, and gain the equity of the dead money AWP has put into the pot. I believe this is one of those rare situations, however, where AWP might fold, being concerned that he may be in for another capped betting round on 4th street, drawing slim for a bad low only.

My chances of scooping here are low, since I’m never getting BAP to fold his aces, and there are at least two aces and a five and a six out. Would this be a rare case when its better to just call, keep AWP in the pot, and have him draw for an eight low because he believes I must have a bad low draw (maybe I paired my 7)? If I raise, I’m only playing for half of the pot. If I just call, however, I may get AWP to come along for every street if he hits any fourth low card. In the race for the best low, I’m way ahead, but am I so far ahead that its OK to take this unconventional risk? (Plugging in the actual hands, I learned that I was a 3-1 favorite to win the low).

You've made the pot big, so it's much more likely AWP will call two, on the chance the Ace will only have three low cards and flat to stop the action. Also, if AWP has middle cards he now has a gutshot or OESD and will suffer all action. Some BAPs, if actually holding Aces, will attempt a check-raise, knowing you're likely to bet a developing low board, so the action doesn't necessarily mean BAP has Aces.

If you make it two and BAP doesn't rr, you are in a fantastic equity spot three-ways and you actually have a chance of scooping if your board continues to develop and you luck into a pair. If the Ace threes, you can decide based on table affect whether AWP will call two more or fold and act accordingly.

I would raise here because not raising looks fishy and doesn't improve your implied position enough to warrant risking letting the AWP develop low equity.

Thanks for your sound advice, Electrical. When I discussed this hand with three other players, two of them thought I should have folded for two bets cold on 3rd because a 5, 6, and at least one A are dead. All three thought I should not have three-bet it. Against an 8, even though an A has raised, I still feel its better to call than to fold. Any third-street thoughts you'd like to share on this one?

What Edison said. Can you walk me through your logic on 3rd?

Folding Third would be insane, calling cold would be fine as well, since you should get squeezed a lot on Four when you brick and folding there sucks less when the pot is small.

My logic on third: AWP's raise with an 8 could have been a semi-steal. I thought it would be better to try to knock him out. If I were he, I would have folded to an A raising and a 2 re-raising. Even if my raise would not knock him out, my hand is still a better hand than the 8, and it can't be too far behind the A, even if its AA.

I'm in the insane to fold 3rd camp, too. So much so that when I insisted I was right to never fold this hand on 3rd, the person with whom I was discussing this hand told me he would call another Stud Hi pro to verify that it was a fold on 3rd for two bets cold. The other Stud pro said he would have folded too (never for one bet, but for two bets cold). When I said they were insane, the arguments given were that my hand's value is diminished by at least 25%, having 3 of 12 straight outs gone. My 432 also has no suitedness.

The question he posed: if the A turned over another A to show a pair of aces, would I still call two bets cold? I said I wasn't sure, because BAP is paying off all bets. He also clarified that if had 543 rainbow, he would never fold that on 3rd for two bets.

In a full game with normal ante you still can't fold if boss shows you two Aces:

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: 5 6 8

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
A* / Ac	47.34%	178,541	373,979	76	31,772	231
2h 3c 4d	26.00%	73,412	95,625	95	183,406	715
$L$L, ss / 8s	26.66%	83,453	130,260	101	129,898	630

Here's what it looks like if you succeed in getting it HU:

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: 5 6 8 8

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
A* / Ac	67.21%	323,626	472,717	27	38,929	153
2h 3c 4d	32.79%	117,161	127,256	27	201,718	153

So you help the AA by knocking out the other low hand, help yourself far less. If both you and the other low hand catch low, you're going to be dominating the low equity and he'll probably keep coming based on description, so you don't actually want him to drop.

[if anybody from PPT reads this, it's a drag having to reformat the table manually every time I post the "2+2" format. ]

If I have 26% equity on third, why call $125 more when I only have $25 invested (the bring-in)? And, for that equity to be realized, I will have to call 4th and 5th, which may give me half of the pot. I may also only have a draw to half of the pot, in which case I may have to call 6th and 7th. Are you advocating calling two bets cold now, and several more bets later, to realize 26% equity?

Great insight about not wanting to knock out a worse low draw, though. That would be a terrible mistake. It was a bad play to raise third. Does the above logic sway you that its not worth it to call two bets cold - and then several bets more - to pursue 26% equity?

Assume ante is $15. You're calling $125 to win the $445 -- plus the excellent implied position if you improve and the Eight continues with a low draw that has very little equity. Your immediate pot odds are just about break-even if villain actually has Aces, but he doesn't necessarily have Aces, and the implied position makes this a good spot, considering that you will be able to play your bricked hands perfectly and when you improve it makes the Eight such a dog to you.

How do you guys play this spot with your range if you are the (A*)AK ?

Against a 27 holding opponent that won't raise (or 3b if we c/r) I guess it's better to just c/c our entire range for deception, right ?

Now if the 27 is going to raise, do we put our hand faceup by leading to get raised and get the 89 out ?
Since this pot is 3bet 3way on 3rd there is a lot of value to that, but what about a single completion 3 way pot ? Do you like c/c for deception and keeping a balanced range more ? Do you ever bet this spot with something like (44)AK or (23)AK ?

And what about c/raising to get 1 bet from the 89 before the 27 3bets ? Is that better or worse ? 89 might be less inclined to fold after paying once but we gain 1 more SB of dead money if he does.

lol thats a lot of questions...

I think it's better to balance by leading (and hope to get raised) with essentially all your Ace door hands. When you don't have a high hand, if you get small pairs to fold then you're cleaning up Ace-high hands for the high side and developing fold equity for when the low hand bricks off, but when you do you're still increasing your scoop potential but eliminating backdoor low potential.

I think it's better to balance by leading (and hope to get raised) with essentially all your Ace door hands. When you don't have a high hand, if you get small pairs to fold then you're cleaning up Ace-high hands for the high side and developing fold equity for when the low hand bricks off, but when you do you're still increasing your scoop potential but eliminating backdoor low potential.

I was going to reply that I thought a C/R was the best line, but the solid wisdom from Electrical convinced me otherwise. Would you still follow this line though if, instead of 72 for the 'four to a low' opponent's board, his board were suited or a 23, 24, or 25? Those boards seem too strong to be leading into, even with XAAK. Without actual aces, its seems like its not worth betting into a hand that likely has you crushed in order to get the other hand to fold. I assume you would not advocate taking this line if the 'four to a low' board caught an A, right?

If another Ace falls then you're never getting that hand out and your only value comes from the underdog low hand hanging around. I would call down though a fold is better if a particularly bad card falls Fifth for a full bet.

I don't know if this line of thinking is apropos for this particular game, but...

If AWP thinks you may have paired your 7, and you have a 2 in the door, he would at least call two bets if he reasoned your other down card was an ace; it lessens the chance that BAP has two of them.

I like a raise here. As electrical mentioned, anything else looks suspicious.