T9o in the small blind in a limped multi-way pot (1 Viewer)

[pokerplayingpisces]

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.

Valid point. I think myself and others have presented the idea out of context, which makes it appear as some sort of "hard and fast" rule, or that I never put all my chips in a pot that wasn't raised PF. If I'm UTG in the OP's example, given the chance, I'm absolutely putting all my chips in after the flop.

To me it simply means to be more cautious in hands like these (full table, multi-way pot, no PF raise). You can easily find yourself in a position where it looks like you have a decent (maybe even strong) hand or draw, but really are second/third best, with little chance to win the hand. Take the OP's example; He flops top pair, and is open-ended. The reality is that he was second best, with only about a 13% chance to win the hand. Of course, this can happen at any time at the poker table (full game vs. short-handed, 4,5, or 6 way pot vs. heads-up, limped pot vs. raised pot). The point is that is more likely to happen in these situations due to the factors others have pointed out;
1) full table, more cards dealt=more hand possibilities
2) multi-way pot, the more hands to the flop diminishes your percentages to win the hand
3) No PF raise, allows for a large range of hands to see the flop

Again, it's just a reminder to me, to slow down and realize due to the way the hand was played, my opponents hold a much wider range than normal.

 

[Chicken Rob]

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.

Sure, but the folksy spr story breaks down quickly when it's limped 8 ways, and everyone is playing 100 or fewer bbs, and the flop comes KQ3 with 2 spades, and we have players with Axs, 33, and JTs. The money's getting in. And all 3 of them may have played correctly.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Sure, but the folksy spr story breaks down quickly when it's limped 8 ways, and everyone is playing 100 or fewer bbs, and the flop comes KQ3 with 2 spades, and we have players with Axs, 33, and JTs. The money's getting in. And all 3 of them may have played correctly.

No doubt, hence my somewhat critical feedback on the "don't go broke" adage. It makes sense in its own way, in the context in which it was said, but it's not hard-and-fast (or even terribly sound) general advice for the modern poker scene.

 

[Bonafide86]

I don't like the $140 re raise, You're beat by pretty much his entire range. In this specific situation, however, I call all day.