PAHWM: A2s goes bananas

Kind of gross, actually. You are pretty deep with V5 and V4 (who I'm not too worried about). What in the world are they calling with? I hope it's your image that is getting the action. Time to put them to the test.

I wouldn't have 3B the flop. We're mostly just folding out worse hands, and narrowing the ranges to hands that have us beat or are drawing to a better hand. Pretty clear we have V4 beat. Guessing we probably have V1 beat. Somewhat worried about V5.

It's hard to think we've got everyone beat given this action. Best case scenario here would be if they're all holding each other's outs, and we've got them all drawing dead. That would be pretty amazing.

If someone has KJhh, then we'd need someone else to have Q7hh, and I guess that would leave someone with 65hh. Another possible scenario where we have everyone drawing dead would be KQ / J6 / 7X. Hard to think someone with KQs is going to limp with that hand pre but then blast off with it post.

Just look at those scenarios, though. What's the likelihood we're up against EXACTLY the three combos we need to be for us to have them all drawing dead?

Really curious to understand how everyone is ranging our opponents, and why we'd think this is a spot where we want to shovel money in. Do we still think they're calling our check-3B with straights, sets, and 2P here?

If there's a BBJP, I'd think anyone with QJhh or 76hh, or drawing to a GSSF with two cards that would play, like KQhh or KJhh wouldn't be raising. The only hand that really wants to raise here is J7hh, blocking the possibility of a BBJP, but unblocking all the strong flushes. I'd play it the way V5 has played his hand, just juicing the pot a bit with a min-click, hoping to induce someone to raise.

The only semi-bluffs would be the hands that block SF's. If V5 is min-click check-raising and calling our 3B with just the naked Jh or 7h, that would be wild.

It's a weird spot now on the turn, given the flop action. I don't really want to check again, on the off chance we do have them all beat, but also don't see the point in betting huge. Maybe bet $200.

I don't feel confident about trying to check/jam. Given that we just x/r the flop, we're really just hoping that V1 jams. If V5 were sitting there with anything that wanted a larger pot, he'd have min-clicked to like $400 OTF and really put V4 in the blender. If I'm sitting there with a SF, 100% I'm clicking back the flop after all that drama. So when he checks, I suspect that V5 might be sitting there with KJhh or TT or flopped straight and knows he might be getting coolered. I wouldn't have a lot of confidence that he is going to bet. Checking around is terrible for us. So I think we have to bet. Sizing, I think we have a ton of very reasonable options.

I kind of want to go $500, that'll put V1 AI, and V4 is in a gross spot where he's putting in half his stack to continue, so he kind of has to shove (which conveniently reopens the action to us). If the worst happens and everyone except V5 folds, then we're going to the river with a $1800 pot and $1500 behind. We should get paid by all sets and maybe KJhh on a brick river.

But V1 is probably never folding, so more likely we're looking at a $2200+ pot and $1500 behind. We can expect worse to call our river jam a lot.

That said, if you just jammed here, that is certainly fine. Even if V4 folds, V5 is still looking at calling $2000 for a $3200 pot. He's getting a bad price for his sets and should fold, but I don't believe a set is folding the turn. That's a bit greedy, but I think works often enough. And I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone who says we should just go $800-$1k so that we have a bigger sidepot after V1 calls.

Going milky with something like $200, so that if V2 jams V4 and V5 have to call only $400 and we get to reopen the action for more would be sweet, but I'm not sure V2 is jamming? If we believe V2 is going to jam a lot, then the milky $200 might be best. If he isn't then we should just force him all in ourselves.

So yeah, small - medium- big - all in. I can make a reasonable argument for all sizes. I think I'd shoot for $500, but if someone wants to declare I'm wrong I don't necessarily disagree with them.

It's very unlikely that everyone is drawing dead. If the board pairs, we're in trouble.

V2: Opened the betting on the flop and flatted our 3!. Is that a SF? Probably not. If you flopped a SF with two people behind to act, in a room with a bad beat jackpot, are you opening? No. His actions are very consistent with a set, a SF draw or a smaller flush. He could very easily have JhT for example or QJ one heart. I think those are perfectly consistent with his actions. His only aggression was a $15 open and a ton of hands are calling $115 more. If you have a draw to the supernuts in a multiway pot, you're probably going to call along.

V4: Flatted the open, wanted to fold, didn't want to call the whole bet - if this guy somehow has a SF this is just an outright angle. So lets assume this guy wants to walk safely through the parking lot, he probably has a strong hand, maybe one with outs. Something like 2P or flopped straight no heart.

V5: Clicked back the initial raise, snap called our 3!. He's probably the most likely to have a SF, but again, with all this betting going on, are you going to click back with a flopped SF? The clickback really reads to me like something with a draw to the SF or a set. KJhh kind of makes sense. I think TT makes a ton of sense. Maybe smaller sets sometimes. I think he's stronger than 2P.

So we are against one opponent with an obviously vulnerable hand like 2P or straight. And two opponents who have some combination of sets, made flushes, or SFD. I'd say human players probably way overcall with the Jhx or 7hx here. All three players could have straights with a SF redraw, they could have sets looking to boat up, or they could have smaller flushes with a redraw to the SF. All these hands would bet smallish, call big bets, but not necessarily make big bets themselves. So far, that's what our opponenets have done. They bet small, and they called big bets. There are few combos we have drawing dead, but there are a ton of combos we have drawing thin and a high probability our opponents are stepping on each other's outs.

This thread may permanently break my mind.

Given the flop action, you think if we check now, V1 or V4 is going to bet with a worse hand?

And if one of them does bet, and V5 either calls or raises, we should jam?

By "time to put them to the test", are you suggesting we bet big? As you noted, we are pretty deep with two of the V's here. I wouldn't be worried about V4 either, but V5 has us covered, and V1 might just be sand-bagging, given how low the SPR has gotten for him.

Indeed, what in the world are they calling with, on this board? If Banana's table image was doo-doo, maybe we get SOME loose action, but when V5 check-min-clicks it and Banana check-3B's, is there a world where we can expect to get 300+ BB's in and expect our hand to be good?

If the result is Banana scoops a huge pot, good for him. But given the stack depths, the action, and this board texture, it's hard to endorse fast-playing our hand, when at least 2 of our 3 opponents are uncapped.

Going back to the OP - the way I read it, Banana says this game is typically good because people will stack off for $1k with weakish TP's, but have any of THESE opponents stacked off that light, for that much?

He said "min-clicks are usually death" but also a few people have made weird bluffs for no apparent reason. Again, have any of THESE opponents made those bluffs? Specifically, has V5, or is he one of the players whose min-clicks should be seen as death?

Not big, but we need to bet. If someone shoves we have a decision to make and it won't be easy if it's passive, high VPIP V5.

Not worried about V4 unless he's the best angler in the world. Not folding to V1.

I am unsure of whether others will bet worse when checked to, but I think attacking the flop minraise and then checking the four-liner turn tells the most credible story that we are weak. I am not worried about missing as much value anymore because we can easily get the money in on a clean river.

Happy to re-evaluate things if there is a bunch of action behind after we check or bet small, but our hand is still clearly worth a lot of money at the moment.

I think your approach to these threads (maybe poker in general) seems to be to hyper-fixate on details and make extremely specific reads. The name of the game in low-stakes is to show up with good hands and value bet thinly, for large sizes. Opponents will show up with garbage and have trouble folding. If we run into the super-nuts here at 500bbs deep, it sucks, but it doesn't change the essential strategy of the game.

I agree it's very unlikely we have everyone drawing dead. That was the main point I was trying to make. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Not sure if you're confused about the action - V2 bet the flop, but then grumble-folded after our raise. I think you mean V1 when you say V2. V1 check-over-called a min-click x/r from V5 and our fairly large check-3B, apparently while glaring at us. I wonder if he might be trying to subtly tell us something about the strength of his hand, something along the lines of "don't kill the bad-beat, you fool!"

I think you may be overlooking the effect of the high hand and bad beat promotions. People will routinely slow-play eligible hands when there's a $500 overlay. Banana said there's $6k-ish available for a straight flush, but I'm wondering if he meant $600. He said the BBJP is $80k. Either way - enough money to make people slow-play.

Also really unsure how we've come to the conclusion that we need to be worried about the board pairing, because our opponents are limping in from MP and LP with 88, 99, and TT that flopped a set. In what world?

If V5 limps in from the SB with 88, 99, or TT, he's going to play it this way? As a check-min-click, snap-over-call a big check-3B from the player next to act, when he could have just flatted the $15 and hoped to boat up on a later street?

There was $60 in the pot going to the flop. He could have potted it. But instead, he checks, and when action gets back to him, and there's $105 in the pot, he's just going to click it to $35? Why would he do that, on this board, where anyone could have a straight or a flush, if not a straight flush?

And then, when the player next to act pops it to $185, on a three-to-a-straight-flush board, and gets snap-called by the next player to act, and tank-called by another, he's just going to snap call when it gets back to him? And you think he has sets in this line?

If he was raising with a set, just to "see where he's at", wouldn't the action after his raise tell him his set is no good?

Just to be clear - I don't think we need to worry about V4. And as I said, I think we might have V1 beat, though it's not impossible he's sand-bagging, given his stack depth. I think we need to be somewhat concerned about V5.

I think your read of the situation is dubious. V5's play at a minimum is consistent with nutted hands. V1's play isn't inconsistent.

It's fun to speculate about someone over-playing KJhh here, but it was SIX ways to the flop, in a LIMPED pot, with a three-straight monotone board. This has to be one of the least bluffed spots in all of poker. People tend to play extremely face up in this scenario.

Note that the guy who opened the betting on the flop (V2) and two of the three players who flatted that bet have folded. Of the three opponents left, two of those initially checked the flop. V5 in the SB check-RAISED, for a MIN-CLICK, into FIVE opponents, including one who bet into five opponents, and two who called that bet, then we check-3B, kinda big, NEXT TO ACT, V1 then SNAP-CALLED, for over 1/3 of his remaining stack, and V5 SNAP OVER-CALLED.

Yeah, it's possible we have the best hand here, sometimes, maybe, but we could also just be cooked. I wouldn't feel great shoveling money in here.

Please forgive me for mistaking your meaning. I took "put them to the test" to be advocating for a large bet.

I agree, we should bet here, but I don't think it should be big. I want to bet small, mostly just to keep control of the betting and do what we can to cap our opponents (looking at V5, mostly, and to a lesser extent, V1).

I'm also not worried about V4, unless he's the GOAT of anglers. I'm honestly not sure what to make of V1, partly because I know Banana's reads can sometimes be off, and V1 is glaring at us, which if often a sign of weakness, but in this spot could be him trying to telepathically tell Banana not to kill the BBJP by pushing an eligible hand out.

Like, say V1 has 76hh. He's going to win the big part of the BBJP if someone else can make a higher SF. If Banana is pushing with AXhh, and he pushes KQ or KJ out, it's a disaster for everyone.

Even if we think KQ and KJ are never folding, V1 may not think that. He may also just be thinking that V4 could be bad enough to come along with 54s or worse, and he's just angry at Banana for creating this situation where V1 is somewhat handcuffed. If V1 comes in for a check-4B, is there anyone in any game anywhere dumb enough to call that raise without a SF?

Also, V1 only started with $600. He may be hoping for the full more-than-quadruple up, and worrying that Banana is just going to scare his customers away.

If this were a raised pot, or a 3BP, or we were heads-up, believe me, I'd be in there advocating for taking a max value line. But it's a six-way limped pot, and the board is T98hhh. None of our opponents are capped.

I'll be quick to admit I was wrong if we get a reveal that V5 and V1 have lost their minds and put a ton of money into this pot with hands that are worse than ours, especially if those hands weren't drawing to a hand that would be eligible for the high hand or bad-beat.

But, and I mean this with all due respect to you and everyone else here - I don't think we need to be focused on telling a credible story in a pot that was limped six ways and sees a three-straight-flush board.

If we wanted to appear weak, we wouldn't have check-3B the flop. That ship has almost certainly sailed. I would have liked to appear weak here, which is why I advocated for just check-calling the flop, and seeing what developed on the turn.

As played, I think it's unlikely anyone with a worse hand is going to poke their head out and try to steal this from us by betting, simply because we check this more-or-less innocuous turn card.

The most likely combos that might try it would just be a few that have the Jh in them, and that would require the holder to think he can make a nutted hand fold by turning his Jh into a bluff. Does this sound like a game in which people are folding nutted hands?

It's hard for me to think a bet is going to get called by many worse hands. The best hands we can target here are going to be draws to a SF that were just being stubborn on the flop, and are now going to be much more elastic facing a bet.

Poker is a game of incomplete information. What few details are provided to us are invaluable for making correct decisions. Showing up with good hands is nice, but the way to maximize the value of those good hands is to have some ability to range our opponents effectively.

I asked before how people here are ranging our opponents. Apparently people here think we can get value from 2P, sets, straights, or any hand that doesn't have a draw to the nuts. That would indeed make this a truly fantastic game, and I can see why Banana is crushing it for 30 BB's / hour.

I think check/jam is the worst option with betting small being a close second but what is interesting about your response is what you think a SF does here. On the one hand I want to agree because we're deep as **** on the other hand we don't have to click it back when we have a SF here. Money will most likely go in come river anyways and we obviously don't worry about losing the hand.

I think this sizing is the best. I'm playing for stacks here and we're just looking for a size that allows us to shove river but doesn't close action when V4 shoves over our bet.

Agreed.

Shoving seems quite terrible honestly, 2k shove into an $800 pot we're forcing V5 to make tough folds with hands that will react differently to a turn bet and river shove.

Disagree just because of all the ifs. We could just as likely be getting called by worse because the bet is so small. We should be betting big and take advantage of weaker players making bad calls. Not play like some weak regs in this thread and try to lose the min and in return also win the min.

Based on the above his reads are awful but that's not surprising. I don't think any turn action we can take will make it look like we're weak. I think our best plan is to force villains into making calling mistakes with weaker hands that they will most certainly have. V5 is vpiping rly high, not hard to find worse flushes, rare as it may be. There's also 4 to a straight and nobody is folding the Jh, Qh or 7h.

Ranges being uncapped/wider is good for us. Not bad. You don't seem to understand that.

I'm pretty done responding to the crowd. This is directed at OP.

Banana, whatever the reveal turns out to be, it almost doesn't matter. We want to be focused on having a solid and repeatable thought process rather than focusing on the results. I kind of like what Marc Goone at Hungry Horse does, with the questions he asks on each street (at least, post-flop).

Since I think you want to know people's reasons for their recommendations, here go mine:

PRE - I don't hate a raise here, to ISO the dead money, if we make it $90 or $100. That may be enough to fold everyone out. But if it doesn't, we'll likely be OOP in a bloated pot post-flop, which sucks. When opponents limp from MP and LP in a splashy game, they're not usually limping to fold to a raise from the blinds.

Additionally, if we make it $90 or $100 and the OMC jams $400, it sucks, because it's a mandatory fold with a hand that had some cooler potential post.

Even if we do manage to get heads up with someone, it'll be a shallow SRP if that's V1 ($600) or V3 ($400), making it tough to maneuver post.

V2 is down 2K tonight, so he may be tilted, and not in a folding mood, and he's deep enough to do some damage to our stack. If he's break-even, he's probably one of the stronger players in the game, and we're unlikely to have much of a skill edge OOP.

We can probably out-play V4, even OOP, but your read makes me think he's going to be erratic, and when he's sitting three or four seats to our right, I'd rather try to get heads up on him when we'll have position on him, which should be half the hands we're dealt.

The best case I can make for raising is that in a best-possible-scenario, everyone folds to the SB, and we get to play HU and IP on him with a deep SPR post.

When we're straddling to $10 in a 1/3 game, even one with a $1k BI cap that's playing deep, people tend to limp somewhat stronger ranges - hands that want to see a flop for $10 or $30-$40, and maybe even $90-$100, but don't want to raise to $30-$40 and have to fold to a $200 3B.

So, given the above considerations, I'd prefer to check our option, and I wouldn't hate on anyone who'd prefer to fold. I think raising less than $90 or $100 is torching, and raising at all, even to $90 or $100, might be torching. If we get the right flop, our hand can make enough that flatting and going multi-way is okay.

FLOP - (Marc's questions)

What is their range? Are they capped or uncapped?

Everyone is uncapped on this board. Anyone can have anything.

Is this board likely to get stabbed?

I'd say it's at least somewhat likely, if not fairly likely someone in this game is going to stab on this board.

What happens if we check / bet small / bet big? Will they fast-play their strong hands?

If we check, someone is likely to stab. If we bet small, maybe someone raises and we'll have to guess if our small bet induced them to raise with a worse hand. If we bet big, it's less likely anyone will raise a worse hand, but we'll have to guess if anyone is sand-bagging a better hand.

What is our hand? Nutted? Thick value? Thin value? SDV? A bluff?

I mean...it's the 4th nuts. I'd say it's pretty thin in a six-way limped pot on this board, where it's hard to find the worse hands that will want to put a ton of money into the pot. Additionally, our hand has no chance to improve to the nuts, so it's as strong as it's going to get.

By process of elimination after answering the above questions, I think checking the flop is better than betting small or betting big.

FLOP (2) - V1 glaring at us may or may not be worth thinking about. V2 betting 15 into 60 and getting two calls is worth thinking about. V5 suddenly min-clicking it, multi-way, on this insanely connected flop, is definitely something we should think about.

I don't know how we'd say anyone is capped yet, when the high hand and BBJP promos lead people to slow-play even more than usual, and a lot of low-stakes recs will tend to slow-play their nutted hands in spots like this (limped, multi-way pots) anyway.

Since we don't really know what's going on here yet, and our hand isn't the nuts, and we're over 700BB's deep with V5, I'd just flat call his raise, and see what happens next. Check-3B'ing here is probably over-playing our hand, at worst, and at best is making it pretty face-up.

When we raise, V1 snap calls while still glaring at us, and V5 calls, I wouldn't be very comfortable, which is usually a sign we've made a mistake.

TURN - (Marc's questions)

What is their range? Are they capped or uncapped? Will they fast-play their strong hands?

Well, given the action to this point, I'd think the ranges for V5 and V1 would have to be pretty strong, because a lot of their weak hands would have folded by now. I still don't think they're capped. And I'm not sure they'll fast-play their strong hands here, when it looks like we're happy to drive the betting, and their hands that beat ours are promo-eligible.

I think our primary goal should be to cap them, if that's even possible at this point. If it is, the best way to do that would seem to be betting somewhat small, though not small enough that we're likely to induce spaz-raises.

As a secondary goal, I don't want to give up the betting lead by checking, as that could also lead our opponents to increase their bluffing frequency, and I don't really want to get jammed on while holding the 4th nuts.

I think $200 is about the right size. But candidly, I don't like how we got here, and as such, I'm not overly confident about any of our options now.

Don't get wrapped up worrying about what anyone here or at the card room thinks about you or your game. That adds nothing to our win rate. Winning the minimum is preferable to losing the maximum. I'm all for winning the maximum when we can, but that shouldn't require us to get lucky while making sub-optimal plays as a result of winging it or playing by feels rather than using our minds and capacity for logic.

Good luck, Banana.

Poker is a race to the fishes' money. Using our minds and logic in this spot would tell us that winning a $500 pot vs these type of players is leaving heaps of value on the table. Granted, if some of us knew this they wouldn't still be playing 1/3 after 20+ years.

a very good, detailed post.

I would bet more than 1/4 same bet almost on the turn. For one thing, you want to charge sets and straight flush draws. I wouldn't be crazy about the turn action, but I would gii.

Umm, every low stakes game in America? People on this site ROUTINELY suggest calling to go multiway with mid-pocket pairs arguing that they "play well multiway". And the pot was straddled, so a lot of low stakes players treat that as a raise and RFI less frequently IME.

The SBs clickback is weird, but it's weird with literally every hand in the same way as people who will limp call for $35 in a $1/3 game - there are literally zero hands I would make that play with, but I see many people do it all the time. Sometimes its good hands that should 3!, other times its random junk that shouldn't have put in $1. And yes, clicking it to " see where I'm at" is not unusual fish logic. And in no world is anyone folding a set because:

1: It can improve to the best hand a lot.
2: If it's drawing dead, then you have a one card out to win the large end of the bad beat jackpot.

True, we can be against a SF. I advocated for jacking it up preflop, but we checked and now here we are. Both players can just as easily have sets. If both relevant players ONLY have sets + flopped SFs, we have 44% equity in a 3-way pot with the 4th probably drawing dead player contributing a sweetener. That means we have to be piling in the money, even though we are going to lose 56% of the time. We're probably a bit better off because hands like KJhh and QJ one heart with a made hand and draw to the stone nuts could be in both player's ranges.

The reality is that if one V has a SF, we just lose and we aren't going to avoid it. If the river bricks, are we folding to a jam? We have to call unless we are certain that V would never, ever, bluff with Jhx. Basically you are saying you only call with a SF. That's a disrespectful fold and you have to be very confident of your read.

So if either V has a SF, we are going to pay it off. We have to offset that guaranteed loss by getting max value from sets, and I believe sets are much more likely to put in more money OTT than OTR because they have outs vs the flush and one out to possibly win the bad beat. On a lot of river cards, V5 won't pay us off with a set. So the sooner we get more money in, the better.

In terms of the V5 "snap call" of our 3! - the floor was called, he had all day to think about it, so I don't think we can read any timing tells like we might with V1.

V5 checks, we bet enough to commit V1 (yes V1 cold called pre guys) - 450$, V1 calls 405 AI tanks a bit, V4 folds, V5 calls, 90 on the side HU IP.

River 2045 Main 90 Side - 6♥

V5 donks 500, we have about 1500 back

Well there's like 0 side pot. He's never bluffing here unless he's crazy.

What value hands does he have? I guess 7h or JQhh.

If he's super fishy and overvalue hands he can have Kh here but I doubt it.

So it's a clear fold.

Well, I don't think a set is ever calling our jam. So two questions we have to answer:

1: Would V call our jam with a straight?
2: Would V ever fold 7hx because "nobody would ever bluff this spot"?

If our assessment is that V is "self aware" then I think he might even find the fold button with Kh, and he's certainly folding any sets and I'd be surprised to be called by a straight. It's really hard for V to call with H having a ton of Ahx and all the SFs as well. So shoving for value is too thin, I think. His range is hands that want to set their own price but will quickly fold and SFs.

So call. If he turns over the SF, thank him for saving you $1k.

Fold.

We've shown a ton of strength, and V doesn't care. He's betting big into an effectively dry side pot. He's not bluffing. We're beat.

We could have gotten here for a lot less.

You are getting better than 5:1 on a call, so you only need to be correct ~15% of the time to be breakeven. If V is ever doing this with the Kh, Qh, or Jh (whether he is blocking or bluffing) or some random spew, you basically have to call. Egregious spot, but you saved money if he shows QJhh or J7hh.

So, on top of the $450 we've already donated, which is more than anyone else in the hand, you want to add another $500 on top, and then needle the guy as he's dragging in a $3k pot, for only getting half our stack?

I'm sure he'll feel terrible about himself. And won't we feel great about torching $950. We sure out played that guy.

Gonna go out on a limb and guess V5 has J7hh or QJhh. V1 KQhh or maybe K7hh.

I'd feel terrible about it if I were V. Either he had it all along and failed to get max value (we'd have happily called AI on the turn), or he fished for a 2 outer and most of his calls were really bad even after accounting for the implied odds he got on the river.

And yeah - if I flop the nut flush and lose only $1k to a two outer to the SF, I feel like its my lucky day. I'd have put in my whole stack on the flop, my whole stack on the turn, and if he had jammed the river its not an easy fold because KJhh is an obvious bluff blocking the nuts and is going to win the main pot often enough. Which if V5 can ever get the A high flush to fold, then he should be jamming 100% of his flushes, 100% of the time, which is apparently a fantastic play versus the 2+2 crowd.