Nothing wrong with volatility in a cash game first of all...
Yes there will be spots where you don't know exactly where you are at, but you know where you're at NOW, and that's in an advantageous situation. Also becoming pot committed is perfectly fine because at least now you know you just have to show your hand down and won't tend to make as many mistakes.

I agree with those that think this is a clear 3bet pre. Being so sure it will still be multiway is not a deterrent to me because if the blinds and kill want to take two to the face with garbage then let them. It puts them into a position to make a mistake. Which is what poker is about.

I would 3-bet PF and re-raise flop ...
The intend by showing agressivity would be to allow us to check on the turn a card we don't like for pot control and to continue agressivelly on Q and 3 ...

I would also consider "your" image in the eyes of your opponents. I would do it with a strong image, not a aggro ultra aggressive one.

Oh, I think it's pretty clear that if we could get it HU against a "super action" cbettor, that we'd be in fantastic shape. We have a very fragile two pair with improvers to top two and a backdoor redraw to a live ace low. (The fact that the other low card on board is a 5 and not a 7 or 8 makes our crappy low redraw significantly better.) We're probably well ahead of his range.


The problem is we'll never get it HU in this game. I would consider waiting to the turn and raising, but one problem is there aren't really many blanks. Another problem is, whereas I think our CO is cbetting the flop near 100%, he's probably not betting the flop that wide.

There are a lot of situations where you don't know if you're ahead or behind but, in a fairly large pot, it's worth investing an extra bet to improve winning chances. However, given the loose game and number of awful turn cards, that intuition may not apply here.

Yes. And I was saying 'raise flop' with this game's characteristics is significantly worse than 'call flop, raise a turn lead to try to knock others out'.

No we are not in fantastic shape. A4** has 57% against us. Even 47** and A6** have 52% against us. We are never in great shape since we don't have a real low draw. Thats how O8 works.

Instead of focussing on "OMG I have 2 pair" its better to think about runouts. There aren't many blanks because our hand is not very good. Instead of being greedy and thinking of knocking players out, its better to realise your hand for what it is and play it for what it is.

I agree with your last paragraph, but this hand isn't the right instance to do it.

With five big bets dead in the pot and only two more rounds of betting left to be punished for our poor implied odds, being heads up with 43% or 48%--that is, getting a payoff of > 2 big bets for our not-very-good hand--is superb shape. That's how fixed-limit poker works.

If we could somehow knock players out (which we agree we probably won't) and get HU, it doesn't matter that our hand is not very good. We have reasonable equity, are going to showdown, and are receiving the overlay of dead money in the pot.

But we shouldn't try to knock players out, even though it would be a fabulous outcome here, simply because it won't work. If we could even reasonably expect to get it to 3-handed, it would probably be the clear choice.

Indeed. Because we won't eliminate people.

With five big bets dead in the pot and only two more rounds of betting left to be punished for our poor implied odds, being heads up with 43% or 48% is mind-bogglingly superb shape. That's how fixed-limit poker works.

If we could somehow knock players out (which we agree we probably won't) and get HU, it doesn't matter that our hand is not very good. We're have some equity, are going to showdown, and are receiving the overlay of dead money in the pot.

But we shouldn't try to knock players out, even though it would be a fabulous outcome here, simply because it won't work. If we could even reasonably expect to get it to 3-handed, it would probably be the clear choice.

Indeed. Because we won't eliminate people. The theoretical point is still important because not every game is a "zoo game."

Any weak made hand will benefit from knocking players out of a big pot. Thats true of any situation. The important lesson to be realized here is that two pair no low draw is not a good hand.

What do you mean by a "good" hand? Do you mean it is not an equity favorite over the field? I don't believe that is true, although any equity advantage we have over the field's range on the flop is pretty narrow. And there are a many situations in which even a hand that is an equity underdog benefits from putting in a raise when that raise might help clean up whatever equity you do have.