Huge pot..AQ

Pre is too small. I would go 35-40, especially given loose table.

As played. Bet flop 80. TT, QQ would likely have raised pre. You're only worried about set of 4s and QT (which you have a blocker to). Plenty of value from random pairs here.

Agreed about the raise being too small. However, given all of these limpers, our terrible position, and the realization that some low limit players do limp-call with strong hands, I'd be tempted to check and see what the flop brings.

Either go bigger pre or limp. As played, c-bet unless one of them is stab happy, then c/r, although you probably don't know that yet, so just bet $100. Put the pressure on. As stated, we are worried about QT and maybe a set of 4s.

id check flop and see what happens.

pre should be at least $40 given that many limpers and you are OOP.

How do we determine the size of the raise in a situation like this? I always thought it was 4x oop if HU and then add a bet for other limpers. Is the 40 ish size raise just an exploit of obvious loose bad players?

I do like the idea of just checking here. I think I still get several calls even with the larger raise size.

12 + 18 = 30, so you didn't follow your own rule.

I usually go 5x plus one bb per limper, so that would be 33, but in this case\ I'd round up to 40 given looseness.

Pre is fine, now check flop and decide.

I would have raised to 10 pre

Agreed you want to raise quite big in these spots. It just looks like you are stealing all the limps, which you might want to actually do here and there.

You can check the flop, but you can also bet small. Like $30. You'll deny hands like 33, backdoors. Maybe someone even has like k7s. You can get a little value from worse. It might be a bit easier to play too, especially at 1/3, as better hands will likely raise and people are unlikely to bluff raise,

Multi way we want to bet small, which still leverages everyone against each other. I would bet 50.

Sort of a stupidly obvious revelation I had recently - they don't limp to fold to a normal size raise. When we're OOP with a hand that's good enough to raise, but not the top of our range, and not very playable multi-way, I'd be raising bigger, at least $35, if not $40 or $45.

As played, I'm checking range from OOP with a zillion opponents left to act in a splashy game. Maybe normal opponents aren't going to stab at this, but in a game like this one, someone is bound to stab at it. I'd probably check-raise anything less than a 1/3 pot bet, and check-call anything over a 1/2 pot bet, unless it goes like x, x, b, c-c-c-c-c, in which case, I'd probably put in an absurdly large raise.

Nothing good comes from raising small OOP in a splashy game with 6 limpers to us.

Yes, it's a low-stakes exploit in splashy games with few if any opponents punishing us for raising large by 3B'ing us. If they're going to limp-call wide, but not 3B us, we should increase our raise size.

I'd just go from an automatic 4x + Nx to 5x+Nx+whatever I think will get called by at least one opponent ("N" being the number of limpers).

If the stacks are deep and dudes are wagging their d1cks around being splashy, it's game on, and I'll make it $50, because eff those guys, their big stacks, and their tiny d1cks.

Raise bigger pre.

Thanks everybody.

I would go 30 minimum pre. Flop 40-50 or check. I lean more towards check with is many (likely weak) players in position. Fairly likely to get stabbed and we can check call or check raise depending on sizing.

With this many limpers I would either (a) just see a cheap flop OOP and play a small pot unless I flop ~nuttish or (b) raise huge (to like $40) to hopefully get this HU with one of the shorter stacks where I can then commit postflop with TP.

Obviously our preflop result may have been somewhat unexpected (maybe?) but imo it really sucks. An SPR handcuffing spot where stacks can easily be forced to be committed, where we have just TP with no chance of improving to much better, we're flying blind to what anyone else can have, and it is super easy to make a massive mistake (of either getting in big stacks with the worst of it or not protecting a huge pot in the times we have the best of it). I attempt to avoid this spot at all costs cuz I think everything we do now sucks. My guess is that check/evaluating is the least worse of a bunch of horrible choices.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I've always found the x + y rule to be a completely useless one because it doesn't factor in one of the most important pieces of NL information: stack sizes. At extremely large stack sizes, this won't matter (as you'll always be playing large SPRs and thus a lot of postflop poker). But with smaller stack sizes, all your raise sizes should be in terms of stack sizes (typically aiming to get in 10% of stacks preflop with TP type hands to comfortably commit postflop).

GcluelesspreflopsizingformulanoobG