not raising the flop is criminal

I am in his camp too.

Which doesn’t mean it is correct, just what I’d do game speed.

Yeah it's quite wrong. Now you know and maybe next time at game speed you'll 3 bang it.

I would have 3 bet down to k9s in game speed I think.

Being in the CO is such a reason to 3 bet. You really want that button. You have a plenty good hand. Lets goooooooooooo

The EPs limp range is the wild card here. You gave no info so i'd expect it to include a lot of hands you dominate and not many that dominate you which pushes up your equity a lot making it a clear 3bet. Maybe he limps KQ, maybe he limps AJ, but those often raise, and there're a lot more worse Kx or Tx hands mixed in there.

If for some reason he was notoriously tight though it changes it a lot both because it likely doesn't include hands you dominate and because the raiser is probably taking that into consideration and tightens up accordingly. You should be inclined to raise even with a small equity deficit because the value of denying the blinds their equity is greater than the cost of occasionally being 4bet but only if it's a very small deficit. Quantifying the exact break even point is tough.

Hard to imagine 3betting K9s isn't losing money for realistic ranges though.



Would not raise flop because I expect the pfr to 3bet a lot if not most of the time.

I understand what you are asserting, I’m just not seeing the logical argument. When you say “plenty good hand”, I still interpret it as being dominated by MP given the description of the game provided. That is what I am having trouble with. Limps to me in the CO and I am raising this 110% of the time.

Again not suggesting there isn’t merit to your argument I am just explaining my thought process.

Calculate your equity against the three ranges. You can be a bit behind one and still be ahead of the field.

EP was relatively new to the table but seemed "in line" from what I'd seen. I think EP limp generally includes middle-pairs, AXs and maybe hands like JTs or KQ in that spot, but it's hard to say. However, generally think it includes few hands that dominate me and few hands I dominate.

Still think the biggest Qs on hand are PF call vs. 3-bet and river overcall. River overcall may be a mistake, but can't be too big of a mistake.

It's not a question pre-flop.

i should've explained the math better in my post, but yeah, 3bet earns around $15.20 and calling earns around $11.60. yeah, we're a dog vs pf raiser, but generating dead money is more valuable than you are giving credit for.

Can someone give me the range of the guy in MP who raised? I know what a avg 4/8 player would have here, but no idea about 15-30. I'm looking at the way the cards ran out and the flop....what hands in the MP range do we beat by river, vs hands that we loose? I can only come up with a couple AK, AQ, I know there's value to dead money and value in having button. However, isn't there value in having the pot be 6 or 7 handed...vs 3? Just seems calling is better preflop and raising flop is suicide!

Hi Tipperdog:

I'm getting to this hand a little late and haven't read the other posts.

The one thing I would consider doing differently is to throw in a raise on the flop. This should increase your chances of winning if a jack or king come. When the pot is big, as it is here, it's almost always worth an extra flop bet if that bet increases your probability of winning (which in this case it should do since now if hands like king-queen or ace-jack haven't acted yet, they should be more likely to fold). Also, your raise may allow you to take a free card on the turn.

(Now it turns out in this specific case since you're against top set your raise might lead to three bets on the flop thus costing you more money, but in my mind that's just a chance you should take.)

On the river, while you're most likely to lose, unless you know the players quite well, getting 10-to-1 seems like an automatic call to me. You only need to win a little more than 9 percent of the time to show a profit.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi bicyclekick:

I don't agree with this. Forgetting the specific hand, the argument to 3-bet so the big blind can't call for one more bet makes sense when the pot is short-handed and/or you don't have a hand that plays well multiway. But in this case, and now remembering the OP's hand is king-jack suited, which plays well multiway, I don't think you want to knock people out.

A more interesting question is suppose you knew the player on the button holding the chips would come for three bets as well as one of the blinds. Then would you want to just call (for two bets) or raise to make it three bets?

In my opinion, now you would want to make it three bets. You have a hand that plays well multiway, thus you should be fine in a large multiway pot. To see this, suppose you flop a flush draw. Given the size of the pot, are you happy or unhappy that's there should be several flop players for either one or two bets?

Another way to see this is to suppose that someone flops top pair, someone flops middle pair, someone flops bottom pair, and you flop the flush draw. Notice, that if the top pair bets, because of the size of the pot, both middle and bottom pair may be correct to call, but you (with the flush draw) while losing money to the top pair hand (on that round) are making money from the other two players.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Crazy:

I want to use your post because I think that much of what you say is correct and you bring up some good points. But there's one thing that it's missing and another idea that, in my opinion, is somewhat incorrect.

So what's missing? First, let me preface this by saying that every now and then I come to this forum and get involved with a hand discussion and this same idea frequently comes up, and a number of posters will usually dispute what I say, and that's fine and can create good discussion. But whenever I see a hand like this the first thing I think about is the size of the pot and how that changes many things and can sometimes lead to unusual strategies.

And this leads to the idea that is somewhat incorrect. You wrote: "I slightly prefer calling to 3 betting because I don't think we're doing that splendidly against the original raiser's range." And my response to this is that once you can see that there will be a large multiway pot, the range of the original raiser, while very important in short-handed pots, becomes less important here.

For instance, instead of having the KJ, as in this specific example, suppose you had the 87. You should still call and if you can anticipate one or more additional players coming, perhaps even three bet. On the other hand, if you were going to be heads-up against the exact same raiser and had the eight-seven suited, because of his range, you would fold.

Also, in this specific example with the king-jack suited, if you somehow got heads-up on the flop with the original raiser, then his range becomes more important again.

Best wishes,
Mason

i'll post this again since people still don't seem to understand what i already laid out.

equity:
28.20% 4ways
29.66% 5ways
translates to:
ev:
12.8% 3bets 4ways ev=$7.68 + $8.46 dead ev (from blinds).. TOTAL ev $16.14
23.3% 2bets 5ways ev=$9.32 + $2.33 dead ev (from blinds).. TOTAL ev $11.65

cost of reopening action vs the stronger lj range = about $1
lj range 17.9%
lj 4bet freq 18.45% lose $12.00 ev + $6.00 dead ev total ev -$6.00 | ev*freq= -$1.1
lj call freq 83.3% gain $10.80 ev + $8.85 dead ev total ev +$19.60| ev*freq= +$16.3
total= +$15.2

Mason,

The reason I bring up our range versus the original raiser's range is that if we 3 bet, we could end up in a 3-way pot where that is significant. If we call, we can easily end up in a 7 way pot (as we actually did) and now I agree we aren't concerned about our heads up equity against one of those players, because our share of the 7-way equity is exceptional. So I'm not electing to call just because I'm behind the original raiser, but because I am trying to maximize my implied odds by making the pot multi-way.

The reason I think it's close is because we may get the multi-way action even if we 3 bet and we're not that far behind the original raiser even in the unfortunate scenario that only 3 people see the flop.

I think maybe one reason there is disagreement here is that people are disagreeing over what it means when OP says the poor player has calling chips in hand and is certain to call. I interpret this as meaning the poor player is certain to call 2 bets, but not 3.

Autozone,

From what I can tell, it looks like you are calculating immediate equity as if the players were all in preflop and we get to decide whether we're all in for 2 bets or 3. I don't see where your analysis includes implied odds, which are hugely important in this spot (both in a 3-way pot where we're behind one of the other ranges and a 7 way pot where we have a hand with great implied odds).

Poker is a funny game. Of all the streets, flop was the only one I thought no one could debate. Both pre and post-flop, I viewed this as "volume hand" I would win by flush or straight.
I thought unlikely to win with one pair, given chances of domination and draw-heaviness (boards including 9TJ or 9TK are pretty ugly for straight and two-pair possibilities--plus J or K would make flush board.

More to think about.

Also, in response to others' PF questions. Given his PF tell, I thought button was certain to enter for 2-bets, I had no idea for three. And if button calls 2, BB and SB very likely to follow. If I knew all would call 3, I would 3-bet. But I vastly prefer 7 ways for 2 bets vs. 3-4 ways for 3 bets, even if I'd have button 3-way.

Hi mason, thx for participating in this discussion.
Unfortunately I kinda differ because I don’t understand .
Taking the sklsnsky theorem of poker .
We gain (make money) when players make mistake and we «*lose*» when the opponents do not make mistake , correct ?

By not 3betting KJs we let cheaply the BB and even the SB enter the pot .
Just calling , BB makes no mistake by calling only 1 bet pf with a large range of hands , so we’re not making real money imo .

I mean the reason we enter the pot with a raise pf, is exactly not to let BB in cheaply and force him to call raises with hands he shouldn’t !
Seem to me not 3betting is the same here , we 3bet hoping BB (SB and BU as well) makes a clear mistake by calling with a lot of hands they shouldn’t when we3 bet , making money in this situation .
I feel not 3 betting allows BB to play correctly with too many hands .

I think the fact that our hands is suited is not a reason to prevent us to 3betting when we have a valuable 3bet to make .
Instead I feel being suited is only a plus because we don’t care the pot is multiway or not !
Not 3 betting hands that should be 3 bet just to add more players in the pot ( and so they make much smaller mistake pf) is wrong with a hand this strong , even more so when we have almost the best position in the field .

I guess it comes to which strategy is more valuable and I like auto zone post before me .

There are lots of times in multiway pots where you gain when your opponent plays correctly.

This is true but I hope this ends here because the last thing we need is an open discussion of collusive strategies

While what you say is technically true, it’s my experience at this limit that it’s a rare opponent who after calling for one bet doesn’t automatically call for two more. So I would only give this slight consideration.

I agree.

I agree that he’s almost certain to go for 2 bets but 3 bets isn’t clear. On the other hand, if you have additional information on the player, that can swing your decision one way or the other.

I agree again. Once the pot gets big, lots of other strategies become available which make these types of simulations lose much value. By the way, and this is for Autozone, I recommend reading the loose games section in our book [I]Hold ‘em Poker for Advanced Players[\I] where a number of these alternate strategies, plus their pros and cons, are discussed.

Best wishes,
Mason

Pretty sure he just meant that playing correctly has a different impact on different players.

You isoing with a weaker than normal range might benefit the initial opener while also benefiting yourself and it comes at the expense of other players in the hand.

Soft collusion is a dirty way of phrasing completely legitimate strategy.

Like 2+2 TAG opens MP and a megafish cold calls. Why not 3 bet with a range of hands that's approximately the same as the opener on the button? You both benefit from getting the fish to put extra $ in.

In theory you're "colluding" against the fish since the extra $ he puts in that's above his fair share equity is distributed approximately evenly to you guys. But it's just poker and not unethical play at all. Like you wouldn't bat an eye if you exploitatively 3 bet wider because someone would blind open when folded to them.

It's not. Your example is not collusion, soft or otherwise.

I agree .
But does it ever happen to be profitable compare with calling a hand they shouldn’t when we 3bet and they have 2 call 2bets cold or even 3bets cold for the BU?

Boys, boys. We are down in the weeds when lipper folds just about never and our pfr, hand and range, is fantastic. Proceed accordingly.