1/3: 99 OTB in multi-way straddled pot (PF decision)

I raise pre the first time.

Now we are in a tough spot. What more do we know on villain, in particular 3 betting/squeezing

We do have position, but we don't have set mining odds, though if SB comes along it may be closer, but I still don't think we have enough.

With less than a PSB, he's almost certainly shoving flop - there's not going to be many flops without a 9 you will feel comfortable calling on.

In the abscence of more reads, I probably make a tight fold.

Raise 99 when the action first gets to you. If you raise, and then BB 3B's you off a short stack, you can comfortably fold.

As played, it's a jam or fold spot. V 3B 1/3 of his stack, OOP. He's probably not folding anything here. He's got some better pairs in his range, maybe a couple worse pairs, and a lot of un-paired over-cards.

Because he probably won't think you have a hand as strong as 99 when you just limp in pre, I probably jam 99 pre here, expecting he'll call with a wider range, much of which we're beating. But I could also see just flat-calling, or just folding. At this stack depth, in this configuration, it's kind of hard to really screw this up, no matter what you do.

Against 77+ AJs+ AQo we’ve got ~45% equity.

The assumption in your equity calculation is that V doesn't have worse pairs than 77, or worse AX than AJs in his jamming or calling-a-jam range.

That may be true if you opened, and he 3B jammed 40bb, or if he 3B off a 100bb-200bb stack, and then you 4B jammed. But when you limp on the BTN, and then you back-raise jam, your range doesn't look very strong, at all, so his calling range doesn't need to be all that strong, especially not after he puts in 1/3 of his stack before your jam.

Once he puts 1/3 of his stack in, he's probably not folding ANY hand he deemed good enough to raise in the BB, over 4 limpers, which isn't necessarily that strong a range to start. He may not love it, but he should probably call with all his pocket pairs, at least 55+, I'd think, any suited Ace, any AT-AK offsuit, and KQs.

I'm fine with the overlimp and now I probably fold. We're mostly in a crushed versus flipping case and about 50/50 at that a lot of the time (ex. TT+ = 30 combos versus AK/AQ = 32 combos); have to start adding a lot more flipping cases and the occasional we're crushing case (like 88) before getting it all in preflop (with relatively small dead money) looks +EV, imo. Too much to setmine / see a flop, and shoving has 0 FE with our Button overlimp versus someone putting in 1/3rd of their stack.

ETA: Obviously somewhat dependent on what we think this guy is raising with, but my read of the read is that this guy is just patiently waiting for hands at a loose table and likely isn't going to get too out of line preflop with a shortstack in the BB versus 5 players that are already in the pot. So I'm just not seeing as much as Axs / 55 / etc. here (which I think most would just happily see a cheap flop with) as others and heavily weight it to huge Ax / overpears.

GcluelesswaitingforabetterspotnoobG

All the more reason to limp/shove then if your range is correct.

Not sure if we're agreeing with each other, or if there's some debate about this. Take this for whatever it's worth...

Pre-flop, I tend to shy away from making non-standard plays in order to exploit specific opponents. Exceptions are rare, but would be based on having extreme confidence in my reads on a specific V. It wouldn't typically be based on V's stack size, though I might consider that factor combined with my read.

Here, I think the standard play is to just raise 99 on the BTN. With a straddle and two callers/limpers, you can make it $30, and expect everyone to fold, or possibly go to a flop heads-up, maybe 3 ways, but you'll have position.

If you raise to $30, and BB has a starting stack of $120, he'll probably fold or jam. Calling off 1/4 of his stack, OOP, is probably a mistake with almost any hand. If he jams, and if we think he's fairly sold, we can just fold. We don't need to go to war for 40bb with a middling pair. At best, we're flipping. At worst, we're dominated.

When you limp on the BTN, you're adding to the incentive he has to put in a squeeze raise pre. Because he's OOP, now facing a straddle and 4 limpers/callers, he's going to have to raise bigger, committing more of his stack, and at a certain point, he'll be pot-committed. Here, he's more or less at that point when he raises 1/3 his starting stack.

When you limp on the BTN, you're capping your range. It's very unusual to see a limp-back-raise-jam from the BTN. I'm not sure I've ever seen it. It looks fishy as hell. When he raises to $40, your only raise size is an all-in jam. If I was V, and saw you do this, I'd think you were way out of line, and I'd be calling you down with a wider range as a result.

Without getting inside V's head, just guessing at what his range would look like when he calls, I'm guestimating you could be in a coin-flip situation for 40bb. You happened to win this time, but you could have just as easily lost.

Look at it this way - if someone presented you with these options when it was your first turn to act, which would you choose with 99?

A - Limp for 2bb, then call a 13bb raise in position, but with a severely capped range, facing an uncapped range.

B - Limp for 2bb, then fold a decent starting hand to a 13bb raise.

C - Raise to 10bb - possibly get called, see a flop, and play the rest of the hand in position with an uncapped range, possibly everyone folds pre-flop and you win, possibly someone 3B's to 40bb and you have to fold.

D - Limp for 2bb, then 3B to 40bb with hardly any, if any fold equity, over a 13bb raise from the solid player in the BB, who could have just completed the bet to complete the action. Flip for 40bb stacks.

Just look at the numbers in each option, and the possible outcomes. Raising to 10bb should be the most appealing option.

Would you limp / back-jam with AA? Probably not. Limp / back jamming with 99 isn't really "playing poker". It's just gambling.

I think I agree with you that raising to 10x BB PF is the optimal line *over the straddle and two limpers*.

However, the point I'm trying to make is that once we limped, the shortstack was enticed into a big squeeze bet, effectively committing his stack, and our precise hand has strong enough equity against Villains range to make it worth the shove.

Yes, the line is peculiar, but once action folds back around to Hero, it is +EV based on Villains opening squeeze range and his calling range.

So, we are agreeing. I arguably misplayed it the first go-around, but IMO, salvaged to get it in +EV the second go-around.

You should agree that raising to 10bb when it's your first turn to act is the most correct choice. You shouldn't be thinking about that.

Once you limp and the BB raises for 1/3 of his stack, I'm not convinced your jam is +EV. As played, it could very well be neutral EV, which is why it's a jam or fold spot.

If another player's action puts me into a jam or fold spot, that's one thing. I like putting opponents in those positions, especially when I have a strong hand, or just the stronger range. I don't like putting myself in that position by taking some odd line that doesn't make sense to my opponent, and incentivizes my opponent to do something aggressive with a range I can't really define, because of the odd line I took.

As an example, a recent hand I played at 2/5:

Hero ($2500) opens to $20 UTG with AKo. A fairly tight/solid V1 in UTG1 ($1000) 3B's to $80. So far, pretty standard stuff. But then the LAG V2 ($1500) in the CO 4B's to $200, and it folds back to me.

It's a weird situation. If CO folded and it was just me and the TAG V1 heads-up, I could see folding, calling, or 4B'ing to $300 (which would force V1 into a fold or jam decision). Now that the LAG V2 has 4B, but taken this oddly small sizing, it opens up some interesting options for me as the original raiser, because of the stack depths.

If I fold, V1 probably isn't calling a 4B without a very strong hand, and V2 will win the pot with a fairly small 4B. V1 might actually jam with a hand I could beat, and I'd lose out on a huge pot. Folding AKo here is kind of out of the question.

If I call, V1 will call with a wider range, and I'll be playing a bloated 4B pot multi-way OOP. I can call and get away from my hand if I miss the flop, but even if I connect with the flop, it'll be hard for me to realize my equity and extract value when I'm OOP against 2 opponents, so I think calling isn't the best option here.

If I turn AKo into a bluff, and put in a 5B to $600, neither V can just flat call. They'll both be pot-committed, so for them, my 5B will force them into a fold or jam situation, with their entire range, which will include a lot of pocket pairs that are currently ahead of my AKo, some AK combos that I'd be chopping with, some worse AX combos, but really not much AA/KK, since my AK blocks those hands.

If they fold, I win. If either or both jam, I'll be getting really good odds to call, and I'll get to see all five cards, with a hand that blocks AA/KK and will be flipping with most of their ranges, chopping with some of their ranges, and dominating some sliver of those ranges. 5B'ing here is almost a free-roll for me.

V2 in the CO made a mistake by 4B'ing for such a small size - a size that's only 20% of V1's starting stack, leaving enough stack depth for me to put in a 5B for less than V1's whole stack, but enough to pot commit both my opponents if they were to call.

As the original opener in UTG, my 5B looks insanely strong. I'm going to have AA/KK here a lot. I'll rarely have QQ or a lower PP. My only bluffs here are AK. It puts my opponents in the position of having to figure out if they want to call off their entire stacks in a situation where they're flipping at best, and crushed at worst.

They both ended up folding, and I scooped a nice pot. After the hand, V1 said he folded QQ. V2 was shocked, and said he also folded QQ.

So...don't go out of your way to make odd plays that end up putting you into a fold-or-jam spot. Make standard plays that put your opponents in those spots. You'll win more and have less variance and stress.

We've had two comments above regarding the limps "enticing" the BB to squeeze. The question is: is that what is actually happening? Most LLSNL players simply like to see a cheap flop in the BB for free; here, they can do that for a cheap $3 more and see if their KJs flops a great hand.

Most LLSNL players aren't being "enticed" into anything when they raise in the BB; instead, they mostly just have a top 5% hand. It might be a "you had to be there moment" but it's a little unclear to me given the read whether we should deviate from what the typical run-of-the-mill LLSNL player is doing here.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Again, the only point I'm making here is that with the position we find ourselves in after having limped and a short stack squeezing, jamming is the +EV play.

Let's use my tight range I articulated up top, and then we can use yours. Either way, both are +EV.

Hand 0: 44.964% { 9c9s }
Hand 1: 55.036% { 77+, AJs+, AQo+ }

If villain has the tight range of 77+ AJs+ AQo+, we've got 45% equity. Let's assume he calls our shove every 100 out of 100 times (which, we all know is unlikely, people sometimes fold here incorrectly).

With $70 in the pot after the $40 squeeze raise from BB, it's $120 from us to potentially profit $170. Clearly the odds here are in our favor (~1.3:1) when we only really need ~1.05:1

Now, let's assume he has a wider range, per your post

[quote=docvail]Once he puts 1/3 of his stack in, he's probably not folding ANY hand he deemed good enough to raise in the BB, over 4 limpers, which isn't necessarily that strong a range to start. He may not love it, but he should probably call with all his pocket pairs, at least 55+, I'd think, any suited Ace, any AT-AK offsuit, and KQs.[/quote]

Hand 0: 54.152% { 9c9s }
Hand 1: 45.848% { 55+, A2s+, KQs, ATo+ }

Now, not only do we have sufficient odds to get it in - we're actually AHEAD of his range, and the extra money in the pot just cushions our +EV.

(And please someone double check my math, I'm coming off a 10+ year hiatus from seriously playing cards)

Guy who limp-calls with his entire range doesn't understand mindset of TAG/LAG players.

Same stuff, different thread.

In your AKo spot in 2/5, you're advocating for shipping 200BB in a spot where you are largely a coinflip, albeit with fold equity. In my hand, you actually advocated for jamming earlier in the thread, and I concurred. I'm not entirely sure where we went wrong going back and forth, because I've agreed with you and you've agreed with me. I'm not a fan of coin flipping for 200BB, but happy to get it in when there's dead money in the pot in the form of straddle + limps, and only 40BB. I apologize if I'm not understanding or appreciating what you're saying.

But note as soon as you start tightening up what pears he is doing this with (say to TT+), we quickly become a decent dog.

You'll know better than us how this guy / your game plays, but I don't see small-medium pears squeezed preflop a lot after a bunch of limpers OOP in the BB (as most are perfectly happy to just setmine against the world).

GcluelessequitiesnoobG

I don't mind your jam, when you did. I don't like how you got there, by limping pre.

If you raise to $30 first, and V jams $120, you can just fold. It's really a trivial fold, and protects your stack.

If you limp, and then V pot-commits himself by raising to $40 (1/3 his stack), you can also fold. Folding is fine. You have $6 in the pot, and don't have a compelling reason to call his $40 raise, knowing he's jamming any flop, nor do you have a compelling reason to jam for the rest of his $120 stack.

Your jam is probably neutral EV, when you get there the way you did, against this V. But it could be negative EV, if V is calling your jam with a tighter / stronger range. The only reason I have to think me might call with a wider / weaker range is the fact that you limped in on the BTN, before you jammed, which is weird, and fishy.

If I was in V's spot, I'd probably be giving your range all sorts of weird / weak Ax hands and smallish pairs that really shouldn't be jamming, but might, rather than folding, or calling his raise, knowing he's just going to jam any flop. In that scenario, back-jamming with weak Ax hands and smallish pairs is something I've seen bad rec-fish do.

In my AK example, I wasn't advocating for getting >200bb in pre-flop for a coin-flip. I was advocating to be the one putting our opponents into fold-or-jam spots, rather than putting ourselves into fold-or-jam spots, as you did here. We should be forcing our opponents into making tough decisions, not forcing ourselves into making tough decisions.

99 is a hand you should just raise on the BTN. If V 4B jams over your raise, it's a trivial fold. When you just limp, then he raises 1/3 his stack, pot committing himself, 99 becomes a viable jam, but one where we are sort of hoping to be in a coin-flip situation, as a best-case scenario. It's a scenario we could have easily avoided, and one in which we could easily lose.

This one happened to work out for you. But I wouldn't make a habit of getting stacks in pre-flop in coin-flip situations. That's going to maximize your variance. Instead, I prefer to make more standard plays, that will result in less variance.

Your limp was terrible. Your jam was fine, in the sense that it was probably neutral EV, and it happened to work out this time. If it didn't work out, I'd still say the limp was terrible but the jam was fine, because it was neutral EV.

If you raised and then folded to his jam, I'd say that was probably correct - both the raise, and the fold. If you limped, and then folded to his 1/3 stack raise, I'd say the limp was terrible, but the fold was fine, because, again, jamming or folding in this spot are probably equal in EV - they're both neutral.

No matter how this hand played out, the limp was terrible. Once you limp, and he raises 1/3 his stack, folding or jamming are both logically / reasonably defensible, but either way, win or lose, putting yourself into that position - by limping 99 on the BTN - is a mistake you'll want to avoid making in the future.

You don't want to avoid addressing the negative EV mistake simply because a subsequent neutral EV decision worked out well for you.

Hope that all makes sense.

Yup. Makes sense. Agreed. Thanks

You really think "terrible" is an accurate description of the preflop play? Because it really doesn't leave you much room to describe preflop plays that truly are terrible ("super terrible"?).

Overlimping into a pot in position with a medium pair is simply never going to be "terrible". You can certainly argue whether raising is more EV. But lol @ preflop being terrible.

GcluelessterribleplaysnoobG