50 ante/bi full game. villain is unknown but he looks like he is not good.

on 3rd street the upcards are like 9TTJQKK with like 3 clubs, 3 diamonds, a club and a spade (me) out.

9 is BI, someone folds, villain limps with the K up and fold to me (one player with the T is between me and BI) with K(67)

i complete? not only havent i played this game in a long time but ive never really seen this situation before, or if it has come up i have not had a hand that i could consider participating with.

seems thoroughly, 100000% standard

Sure

I betcha he has something similar, your hand is live, and you got the 76 to runner runner runner low so I don't see why not.

This is like the most marginal hand ever. The exemplar of marginalia. Everything your hand has going for it is compromised, but the pot is huge and spades are completely live. I'd probably have to play. If I made a pair or 3-low I'd at least see the Fifth card.

I don't know about completing though. You almost can't have the best hand, and if the B-I has nothing, he'll fold on Fourth anyway.

His hand isn't compromised at all, except for one king. The low cards and spades are 100% live.

You'd be a very silly bear not to.

This makes you sound like a very weak-tight bear.

The point is that the limping king quite probably can be made to fold better hands, or hands with equity if he bricks 4th and 5th. As well as putting a lot of pressure on hands like 922, or whatever.

I don't really think it matters whether you complete this hand or not. I'd prefer to call, unless the ante/bringin structure dictates otherwise, or unless the limper shows a tendency to limp/fold when raised.

Just take the case where the bring-in has a crappy hand and lucks into a winning hand due to our not raising. Also, the fact that we'd raise any big pairs is somewhat relevant for how we should play our drawing hands. And so on.

Why would you think calling and completing would be similar?
The structure is fully defined. 1/4SB ante, 7 people and 1/4SB bring-in.

"Villain is unknown". Other than that it's probably not all that likely that he actively enjoys setting fire to money by limp-folding third a lot (Hint: 4:1 on a call against a completion).

I think it's pretty clear that we want to play this hand. I think that it's less clear that we want to complete the bet. When I think of "not good" players, I think of people who make a lot of calling errors, rather than folding errors. I think that this points to limping rather than completing, but I think completing would be just fine.

Good low draws start out with three little cards, not two. Good straight draws start out with three connecting cards, not two. Good high hands start out with at least a pair, not a lonely, dead, naked King. Good two-way hands have some combination of low, straight, flush or pair strength, or at least maybe a razz hand with an Ace.

But yeah, spades are live I guess.

Well, when I play a hand like this, I'm mostly looking for spades.

You said "compromised", which means something entirely different than "mediocre hand", and K76s isn't even that in this spot. Also, flushes *are* scooping hands when nobody holds a low draw. Apparently you meant something else than you wrote, fine.

And saying we got king for high is just missing all sorts of points. Like, "what does the other guy hold for high", and "what's the difference in number of bets to showdown if we raise now compared to calling?"

This is a high-ante game where somebody shows weakness, nitting it up isn't exactly the way to play this.

That you "probably have to play" with a fully live flushdraw, with backdoor lowdraw in a prime bluffing spot getting 9:1 on a call kind speaks volumes, though.

If we we're talking about a game with 1/10SB or smaller ante, you might have a point. But probably not.

Hell, given the structure raising a completion looks kind of good.

So... you figure to show this down?

Given a choice between getting 9:1 and charging myself to take 3:1, I'll go with 9:1 against a probable better hand.

If what you're saying is that this is an opportunity to go fugue and try to overpower another crappy hand, okay, but against an "unknown, not good" opponent, do we really make a lot of money trying to get him to fold a pair or whatever?

It's a big starting pot, so yeah I'm going to want to take quite a few cards off most of the time.

Given a choice between getting 9:1 and charging myself to take 3:1, I'll go with 9:1 against a probable better hand.

I'm not only saying that, I'm saying you should be doing that a ton when it's there's 2 SB in the pot to start with and not many people left to defend it. It's a completely different game compared to starting with 1 SB.

We have 0 hands against him, he just looks "not good" and it's 200-400. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he's going to be taking AK7, 77K or whatever to showdown no matter what. We really don't have much evidence at all, with regards to his play.

And there's two more players behind, so even if the limper doesn't think about our range, they well might, which would be really bad if they can zero in on us having something like a crappy pair or a draw.

So it's not like we're playing some donk we know won't think about what we have. We're playing three guys who play 200-400 mixgames, they just might be paying attention.

So from that POV there's a lot speaking for just playing all hands you want to play about the same. Or at least doing some sort of hand balancing so we're not so easy to read if we limp. Especially against T9 showing it seems like just raising every hand you want to play is fairly reasonable.

Further, we don't really lose all that much when we are up against a better hand that won't fold.

I'd rather just raise and make him fold some huge amount of the time with my totally concealed draw by fifth, instead.

incidentally, with those particular dead cards, everything left in the deck is gonna improve your hand in one way or another, so you can expect to be playing aggressively the whole way down