T9o in the small blind in a limped multi-way pot (6 Viewers)

[bentax1978]

This hand happened towards the end of a good session at a new game I played at for the first time last night (1/3 NLHE).

Overall I had a nice 3-hour session (in for 300, out for 700), but this is one hand I feel I played poorly (at least on the flop).

I hadn't played long at this table, and didn't have much of a feel for the players at this point. BB was an older guy who was playing a short stack ($73). Seemed somewhat passive, was calling a lot, and often with the second (or third) best hand. UTG just sat down and had just under his initial buy-in when the hand started ($283). I had both players covered.

-----------------------------

4 players limped, Hero completes from the SB with T9o and the BB checks. $18 in the pot.

Flop is 9 8 7, two spades.

Hero flops top pair and open ended and lead out with a $20 bet.

BB calls the $20.

UTG raises to $40 total.

Folds around to Hero, and Hero makes it $140 total.

BB calls the rest of his stack (about $50 more).

UTG goes all-in for $280 total (another $140 on top)

Action is on Hero who needs to call $140 more into a $508 pot.

Oops. Now what?

 

[detroitdad]

tough spot. My gut says to call. You easily could be playing for a chop if you hit your straight.

Gut says to call. Guess that's what I'm doing. What do they say? "crying call".

 

[jbutler]

God hates a coward.

 

[bentax1978]

tough spot. My gut says to call. You easily could be playing for a chop if you hit your straight.

Gut says to call. Guess that's what I'm doing. What do they say? "crying call".

Well, to be fair, I got myself into this spot by arguably being a little too aggressive with the re-raise to $140. I wish I had stopped to think about what UTG's min-raise to $40 meant before I shoved a pile of chips in the middle. But I didn't, so this is the situation we're now in.

 

[bergs]

Min re-raise at most 1/2 or 1/3 table almost always means nuts or near nuts IMO. I'd fold. You could spike a 6 and make the straight and still be dead. UTG has at least 2 pair, probably a made straight.

 

[pokerplayingpisces]

Gross spot. I probably would have flatted the re-raise, and re-evaluated on the turn. No need to bloat the pot here, and get pushed of your draw. As played, I'm probably folding. What's that adage about not losing all your chips into a limped pot?

 

[jbutler]

Min re-raise at most 1/2 or 1/3 table almost always means nuts or near nuts IMO. I'd fold. You could spike a 6 and make the straight and still be dead. UTG has at least 2 pair, probably a made straight.

At the risk of sounding like Bart, I do see people min-raise with top pair or an overpair on boards like this to "see where they're at".

Clearly that's not what was going on here, however. Guy has two pair at minimum. Maybe a pair and a flush draw, but doubtful as his initial raise would likely have been 3x or more.

 

[pokerplayingpisces]

At the risk of sounding like Bart, I do see people min-raise with top pair or an overpair on boards like this to "see where they're at".

Clearly that's not what was going on here, however. Guy has two pair at minimum. Maybe a pair and a flush draw, but doubtful as his initial raise would likely have been 3x or more.

I wouldn't rule out pocket 7s or 8s, in this spot either. He could have limped, hoping to set mine.

 

[GenghisKhan]

Min re-raise at most 1/2 or 1/3 table almost always means nuts or near nuts IMO. I'd fold. You could spike a 6 and make the straight and still be dead. UTG has at least 2 pair, probably a made straight.

This.

 

[Chicken Rob]

The nit move is to fold.

I fold here.

 

[Mr Tree]

Gah, this would be an easy fold if it weren't only $140 more to swing for the fences.

I hate the reraise FWIW. It leaves wiggle room for an all in move like this and you really only have a draw. (Unless somehow top pair 10!kicker is beating the ultra action behind you.) sets you up to make a tough decision. Much prefer flaying the raise and evaluating the turn.

 

[bentax1978]

Gross spot. I probably would have flatted the re-raise, and re-elvauted on the turn.

I hate the reraise FWIW. It leaves wiggle room for an all in move like this and you really only have a draw.

Much prefer flaying the raise and evaluating the turn.

I agree, in hindsight the reraise probably wasn't a great move and put me into a tough spot. As I mentioned in a previous post, I really didn't take into account the fact that UTG raised (and min raised at that), and that I likely didn't have much (if any) fold equity. I think in my mind I was treating my move more like a check-raise, which was a mistake on my part (obviously). I had also taken a bunch of pots down previously with large bets and aggression, and I guess I was on a roll and didn't stop to consider the specific circumstances of this hand.

 

[bentax1978]

tough spot. My gut says to call. You easily could be playing for a chop if you hit your straight.

The last part of that statement would be a possible reason to fold, depending on how likely I think that scenario is.

God hates a coward.

True. But it isn't God's extra $140 on the line, so his feeling aren't relevant here.

Min re-raise at most 1/2 or 1/3 table almost always means nuts or near nuts IMO. I'd fold. You could spike a 6 and make the straight and still be dead. UTG has at least 2 pair, probably a made straight.

After UTG's all-in, that's what I put him on: a minimum of 2-pair, maybe a set, likely a straight.

As played, I'm probably folding. What's that adage about not losing all your chips into a limped pot?

I've actually never heard that adage. I'm assuming the adage tells you not to

 

[joker80]

Well, I don't re raise in that situation, but you have the pot odds to call now. Probably behind a set, over pair

 

[bentax1978]

So back to the hand.

UTG thought for only a second or two before going all-in. Dealer counts out the raise, tells me it's $140 on top. I start counting out my $140 to call, as my first impulse is that there's no way I'm folding getting better than 3.5:1 on my money. So I cut out the $140, which left me with $360. I start to think about how frustrating it is going to be if I lose almost $300 on this hand, a hand that at this point I realize I overplayed. I start to really regret the re-raise to $140, realizing now how ill-advised it was in the face of his min-raise. Playing the hand back in my head, I realize that UTG has done nothing but show strength in this hand, and there's almost no chance I'm ahead right now. I tell the dealer I need a second, and neither he nor the other players at the table seem to have any issue with that. As I think about it more, I'm become convinced UTG has a straight, and I might be drawing dead to 3 outs for a split (plus some runner-runner FH outs). I consider that even if he "only" a set, I'm still only getting just better than the right odds I need to call. I ultimately decide that I made a mistake raising to $140, but that calling now after re-evaluating the hand is probably a case of throwing good money after bad. The nit in me wins, and I make the fold.

Of course, since the BB was all-in, I get to see both UTG's hand and the run-out of the board. UTG flips over JTo for the flopped but straight. I think BB had something pretty bad like 57 (bottom pair and gunshot to the butt end of the straight). Turn and river are bricks, and UTG take the chips. I'm frustrated that I lost over $140 on a hand I feel misplayed, but happy I avoided doubling that loss by getting stubborn and not reevaluating my situation. I am sometimes quick to call in situations like this under the justification that I was "getting the odds", but there are times when all the evidence points to being crushed and it's prudent to cut your loses and move on to the next hand.

 

[pokerplayingpisces]

I've actually never heard that adage. I'm assuming the adage tells you not to

Yeah, I can't find the exact quote, but something to the effect of "Never lose all your chips in a pot that was limped around PF."

 

[moojersey]

1. Don't Donk lead out of position with your weak'ish hand.

2. Barf fold. You are way behind at 99% of $1 / $2 tables.

Consider:

Behind to flopped sets & 2 pair combos

Behind to J9+

Flipping with 2 overs + flush draw, this one might be unlikely as it prob wouldn't have limped pot.

 

[joker80]

Nice play to realize your mistake and not lose more.

 

[DrStrange]

It would have been interesting to look at the first decisions Hero made in this hand. Preflop looks standard enough but the first two flop decisions were important. The second one likely was the key to the hand.

 

[Mr Tree]

Question for you guys...do we think the original bet oop was a mistake? It's a play I'd probably make in this situation but considering how straight-y the board is are we better off check calling?

 

[bentax1978]

Question for you guys...do we think the original bet oop was a mistake? It's a play I'd probably make in this situation but considering how straight-y the board is are we better off check calling?

It's funny you ask that, as I was going to ask the same question. I readily acknowledge that the raise to $140 was a mistake, one that i made from acting too quickly and without giving the hand proper thought. But I am also curious if others would have checked the flop instead of betting $20 (and then how do we better play it from there)

 

[DrStrange]

Position matters a lot here. This is a clear bet if checked to on the flop. But from the small blind, I think it is a check. Most of hero's equity is in the draw rather than in top pair / weak kicker. The hand is massively multi-way, let's see what the other five guys want to do before making an investment.

 

[moojersey]

Position matters a lot here. This is a clear bet if checked to on the flop. But from the small blind, I think it is a check. Most of hero's equity is in the draw rather than in top pair / weak kicker. The hand is massively multi-way, let's see what the other five guys want to do before making an investment.

Very much this. Also flop is 3 to a straight with spade flush draw. Flop is juicy wet and slams all villains range in limped multi way pot.

I think it was Doyle who said to never go broke in a limped pot. Hero should heed this now.

I think Hero should straight up fold 99% most of the time to the min raise of $40. Flatting is ok, but plan to fold if we don't improve clean, and it's hard to improve on this board without making another persons potential bigger hand. Huge RIO risk in this spot.

I think it is just a huge mistake to ever put $140 into the pot with your hand in any scenario I can imagine.

What do you hope to make? If you hit 2 pair hopefully non spade that puts 4 to a straight on the board. Now you lose to any Jack, QJ, or naked 6 who won't go away.

If a Jack hits the board, we're dead to Q, 10.

If a spade comes making 2 pair you are in a tough spot. If villains are good players they will put you to the test and force you to make hard decisions.

Fold to the min raise. As someone said this is usually the flopped nuts in $1/$2 and they are bloating the pot to stack you. Villain can easily have J, 10 limped multi way.

I think this is a great example of a hand I'd want to pot control. Keep it small.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Position matters a lot here. This is a clear bet if checked to on the flop. But from the small blind, I think it is a check. Most of hero's equity is in the draw rather than in top pair / weak kicker. The hand is massively multi-way, let's see what the other five guys want to do before making an investment.

Very good point. Stack sizes are also very important.

All we have for a made hand is top pair with a meh kicker. What's paying us off on that for significant money? Not much.

And our draw? A one-card OESD to the second nuts, in a spot where the nuts is a very popular speculative hand, TJ. Against reasonable competition, if we hit, we can't expect significant action unless we're beat or chopping.

There's just no value in this hand unless we have something else going for us. We technically hit this flop in a multi-faceted way, but both of the facets are traps.

Folding to the min-raise wouldn't be a bad play, since it keeps us from getting over-invested. It seems like we're getting odds to chase the straight, but those odds are worse than non-existent in a lot of cases, since we'll so often be drawing to chop at best.

Of course, folding to the shove is correct. It will be rare to see this action and not be up against TJ.

 

[bivey]

I've actually never heard that adage. I'm assuming the adage tells you not to

LMAO I just stopped reading this thread. NEVER heard it? You're a savant then. The rest of us read books to learn this game! It was in the original Super/System if someone hasn't already pointed it out.

 

[jbutler]

Apologies for the derail, but since the "going broke in a limped pot" quote is apparently respected by some as meaningful, does someone want to take a shot at explaining the wisdom behind it? Apart from going broke always being a rather unattractive option, the quote makes little sense to me.

 

[bivey]

Apologies for the derail, but since the "going broke in a limped pot" quote is apparently respected by some as meaningful, does someone want to take a shot at explaining the wisdom behind this quote? Apart from going broke always being a rather unattractive option, the quote makes little sense to me.

It simply means that the strength of your hand can vary based on pre-flop action. Players can limp with any two cards and thus your opponents' ranges widen. Bentax1978's hand, T9o, would carry more strength if the pot had been raised pre-flop as many JT, T6, 65 hands might be ruled out or made less likely. I think it's a little bit more obvious when flops come down Q63 and you get busted by a 63o when you limp AA, for example.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Apologies for the derail, but since the "going broke in a limped pot" quote is apparently respected by some as meaningful, does someone want to take a shot at explaining the wisdom behind it? Apart from going broke always being a rather unattractive option, the quote makes little sense to me.

My take on it is that it's an outdated notion from decades ago where the wisdom was to play smal pots with small hands and big pots with big hands. This advice predates stu ungar, nevermind galfond and durr.

I think it's outdated advice.

 

[jbutler]

It simply means that the strength of your hand can vary based on pre-flop action. Players can limp with any two cards and thus your opponents' ranges widen. Bentax1978's hand, T9o, would carry more strength if the pot had been raised pre-flop as many JT, T6, 65 hands might be ruled out or made less likely. I think it's a little bit more obvious when flops come down Q63 and you get busted by a 63o when you limp AA, for example.

Certainly a preflop raise would not get 56 or TJ out of any of the games I play (and frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see some 6Ts come along as well). The essence of your point is that we should be able to assign accurate ranges for our opponents based on the preflop action which of course makes sense.

My problem is that the quote is the essence of results-oriented thinking. If we wanted to bring it back to actual strategy, it might be better phrased, "Never get all your money in in a limped pot," in which case the player with 63 on a Q63 flop has played it as incorrectly as the player with aces. Obviously that's not true.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Apologies for the derail, but since the "going broke in a limped pot" quote is apparently respected by some as meaningful, does someone want to take a shot at explaining the wisdom behind it? Apart from going broke always being a rather unattractive option, the quote makes little sense to me.

There is some sense to the adage, if we're thinking about stack-to-pot ratios going into the flop. In extreme cases, we can be getting laid big odds on our stack—like in the weird case where we create a $500 preflop pot and accidentally leave behind a $0.25 card-capper. We're obviously never folding anything regardless of the flop because we're getting 2,001:1 pot odds

Brunson's advice is for the opposite extreme cases. If we get over-attached to a tiny limped pot with $500 or $1,000 or $2,500 stacks, our pot odds approach 1:1, which is as bad as pot odds get. We should plan carefully in spots like this and be damn sure we expect to win the majority of the time, especially when the pot is multi-way.

It's a folk-wisdomy RIO warning, which is typical of the NLHE section of Super System. That whole chapter is like a cave drawing that shows Brunson crushing predictable opponents with a primitive LAG strategy.