Villain LAG very aggro pre & post, not afraid to stack off on big draws, folded to my pf 3bet twice tho.

Hero TAG this session, havent shown down a hand except stacking a shortie for 50bb with QQ

PF 2 limpers, Villain calls in SB, Hero checks.

FLOP ($16) 8 5 4

Villain checks, Hero bets $16, folded to Villain who raises to $55, Hero 3bets to $175, Villain calls.

TURN ($366) 8 5 4 6

Villain shoves $525, what's his range?

And what's our calling range?

Well I'd assume you wouldn't 3bet the flop on a dry board in a limped pot w/ much other than 67. That's maybe his range too... but w/e the case that play is the suck.

I may call him w/ a set, pretty sure w/ any 7 obv. His range can be a lot wider as it looks like V wants you to fold. However, I think he has 2pair turned bluff at worse here after flop action, again your flop 3b is the suck.

If you're going to insist that flop 3bet "is the suck" at least you could give an explanation, esp. since you dont know my hole cards & therefore what you are basically saying = "for ANY hole cards you have vs ANY opponent on this flop you should never 3bet". That makes you "the suck" lol.

Serious replies from others ty...

Berating the first reply is a good start when you ask for serious replies from others.

wtf is this, really.

i guess he prob has a ton of pair + straight draw hands. stuff like 76 75 74 65 65 etc
you i guess prob have a set?
if you do have set seems like a pretty standard muck imo.

Doyle brunson said it is a big mistake to go broke in a limped pot.
I would follow his advice and fold everything that does not hve a 7

If i had to guess about villains hand, I would say it includes a 7
even the braves of all villains would not loose 175bb into a pot that has 4 bb to start.

To me it came down to whether villain was capable of making a sick overshove for value and not as a bluff. I thought while 76 was certainly part of my range, given that he c/raised flop he might've thought that I'd call with 67 and let him fire turn before I put in the raise. And certainly if he himself had 67 then 67 would be a smaller part of my range therefore would he necessarily overshove to make me consider folding my sets... other than making a standard 3/4pot bet which would pot-commit me anyway.

I felt his range was polarized towards either the nuts(67) or a bluff(for eg. 2pair) and less towards sets and it became a question of whether he was good enough to overshove for value in this spot inducing a call..... is this analysis reasonable?

Ya that's pretty much what I'm saying alright. I can't think of a single hand I'd do this with. Not even the nuts, and for damn sure not any bluffs. The fact it's a limp pot makes it ridiculously harder to assign ranges.

Problem? Are you missing something?

It's a limped pot, so his range is fairly narrow to at least a 2pair+ after flop action. Next, if he's aggro enough he could turn hand into a bluff on the turn. That's assuming he feels hero won't call w/ anything other than a 7, at which point hero should consider calling w/ sets.

Flop 3bet is awful, because you basically fold out all the hands you beat while ensuring he now only includes the tip top of his range. You're in position here anyways, what's the rush? Give him some rope..

Ya I'll agree that this is reasonably logical. However, still sticking to my guns that 3betting the flop is not.

betting 3/4 pot on the turn is not a possibility for any decent player.


what is he going to bet 275 on the turn then shove ~200 into a 900$ pot on the river?

that looks way more like a 7 to 90% of poker players

I like betting 108 on turn, shipping river with a 7 in his shoes to be honest. You see that's the beauty of no limit. You can bet whatever you want.

Yup, I figured that as well as either overshoving as bluff or for value, he could also have done that simply because he didn't want to have to call a shove when he has a hand that he didn't want to c/f with.

So let's say if we have 44 or 55, do we fold? 88, fold or call? But try and justify why you think 7x is a major part of his range that raised & called 3bet on the flop... does it really make much sense? Once I 3bet the flop if he had 67, flatcalling & overshoving turn is a pretty strange line wouldn't you think? Hence why I framed the post around "his/our ranges" because it all comes down to that..

im folding anything but a 7, he could have 78 if your wondering what 7s he could have except 67.

bouncin i agree with the small bet on the turn in his shoes but would bet more like 160 so its easier for our opponent to hero call river without a straight

at 100bb I agree but this deep I think 3betting the flop is fine as well


I would call only a 7 on this turn. I believe villains range is like 7x, sometimes with 2 hearts free rolling you. dont see anything else from a solid reg, 97 cant peel flop and 85 would be a ******ed turn shove in my eyes.

It's a limped pot. V completed and put a total of 1bb in pre-f. I just feel when you 3bet this flop against this many opponents to almost 50bb, you are strangling and restricting his calling range too much. There isn't even a FD on this flop for him to speculate.

You are slicing off a LOT of hands that you could get value from on later streets by just not calling his first raise in position, while ensuring he now only retains the tip top top of his range. If I had a set or 2 pair in his shoes, warning bells would have sounded on the flop, and I'd likely c/c or try to approach showdown w/o getting $$ in on turn w/ anything other than a 7. Whereas if I was V and raised + got called on flop, and then led w/ set + 2pair (on a brick turn instead), I'd likely be stacking off due to odds / lack of glaring strength by hero's line.

Most of the time people c/r, they lead the next street. I feel allowing him to at least attempt such is what you should have done to retain more hands that you beat and a larger % of his bluffing range (small as it may be in this spot). Besides, eval turn IP just generally makes you tougher to play against than a flop 3bet IMO.