I'm not completely sure why we're shoving,

Not sure betting 85 > betting 124, because if I was bluffing, I would always be shoving here. I swear these are spots where people like to assign villains AK/AQ type of hands and hero it off with a ten.  Surely we just make our hand look ridiculously strong by not shoving.  Also, as I mentioned in OP, the villain concerned here is tilting having just lost quite a big pot. Really don't think he's going to see much difference between 85 and 124.

I don't want to sigh call off another 44 on the river when the three flush or ten gets there, might as well get it in now?

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the sigh call off on the river, there's simply no river card you can pass for 44 so it's hardly like you're going to be in a tough spot. And I agree people like to hero it off with 10x or worse here, so I'm keen to make it as easy for them as possible, which I think 85 as opposed to 124 into 144 does. I think a tilting player is much more likely to call 60% of the pot without thinking and then unthinkingly put the rest in on the river than he is to snap of 85% of the pot. To my mind he's going to see 124 as a much bigger decision than 85.

I also agree it looks ridiculously strong, but that's to somebody who's actually thought through the hand, as opposed to the standard .50/1 player who's also tilting. Definite use of 'assume awful until shown otherwise' maxim. That said, if he was tilted so bad he got the chunk in with  then WP.

Think it's a pretty unanimous decision that we are three betting KK pre given the lineup and dynamics.

I posted the PHA more for the turn line check.

I put the villain in for his last £124 into a pot of £141 with  on  .
I thought this was the best line, with sets/big combos probs c-r flop given stack sizes/wanting to see two streets rather than c-c, c-f turn.

Would anyone do anything different?

I'm not completely sure why we're shoving, the only argument for shoving is if villain is terrible enough to stick it all in with combo draws because draws are fun, or 10x or worse because he thinks we're bluffing. By betting 124 I think we fold out a lot of the hands we'd like to get value from, K10, Q10 etc.

If we make it say 85 I think these hands call a lot more often and get the last 44 in on the river. And even if we're up against a big draw, say  (he clearly doesn't have this, but for illustrative purposes) then the Maths is as follows if he plays at all well:

Bet £124, he always passes, EV +141.

Bet 85, he always calls:

73% win 226,
27% lose (85 + 39 reluctantly stack off on river) = lose 124

EV +131

So even against the worst possible hand for us to be up against it's only mildly worse than shoving and we get way more value from 10x hands and lesser draws that would fold for 124.

I realise this play looks super strong, so much so that good players are more likely to call 124 than 85, but against the quality of players in a 50/1 game I think 85 is more profitable. 

Ok, so stack sizes are super important, in multiway limped pots there is always somebody who either tries to squeeze a hand he should 100% flat pre and sometimes a 50bb stack who decides to shove, UTG should have strongish range but don't want hi to hero fold as we look ridic strong here and we are much more likely to play a heads up pot vs him in position where he will probably c/f the turn a huge amount of time, as 3betting utg+1 and barrelling just looks ridic and we should never ever have a bluff range here in a live 100nl game imo.

also if we think UTG is quite strong then  if somebody does decide to jam then he can overjam alot of the time with like 88+ aj+ where he folds a huge part of tht range when we 3bet.

being able to put £4 in middle to try and get a good scenario and being able to avoid a bad scenario (stacking off with kings on 998 multiway) is important in live cash, i see so many ppl flat aces pre in spots they should def 3bet and then put 100bigs in 4 handed on super coordinated boards vs passive villains who are showing alot of strength.

Never played the 50/1 at DTD, but played numerous others and have yet to find one where the players are sufficiently squeezey to justify flatting here, and can only think of a select few 1/2 games. Definitely think you give the players involved 1000% too much credit.

Rather than, "I look so strong here if I reshove that 3bettor might pass AK/QQ and button is super light so if I reshove AJ/88 I get folds enough of the time to make it profitable."

He's much more likely to be thinking, "AJ is a good hand and it's only 11 more."

I was thinking more like 25, which surely he calls 100% of the time whereas if you shove he probably folds >75% of the time so is less profitable.

This, though perhaps bump it up to 35/40 unless the opponent's super scared.

honestly i think this would be a fine spot for a hero fold.

what I would have done is tank for ~2mins, realise he prolly has a better hand, flick the call in get shown a flush and then berate myself for the next 35mins for not folding.

seriously though you need to have SOME reads on his tendancies, otherwise it might be a bad fold under the "assume awful till proven otherwise" theory.

Big fan of that theory.

Partly depends on how loose he is, plenty of casino fish show up here with  or  , and there are quite a few aggro fish who will bluff in this spot (think early 30s, dressed like mid 20s, (fake) gucci sunglasses, diamond ring, gaudy watch etc) though for every one of these there are at least 10 who just aren't capable of it. Everyone does look super weak in this pot, so there's an argument for saying it's a bluff at least 5% of the time. All in all I'm probably calling, have to win 36% to show a profit, figure we're probably just on the right side of that.

Thoughts on continuing on the turn? For say £46?

jam and unless the SB is a huge nit I don't think its close, expect it to get folded back to you a lot imo

I agree, I think occasionally he'll snap and show you AA, but I think most of the time you're just up against AK, and there's a good chance AK passes.

what does he continue with if we c/r the turn?

Sets, flushes, straights, Q-J but given this is meant to be our range too, why would we check-raise the turn to make worse fold? Or maybe I'm overthinking.

I guess we should only be check-raising the turn here if we're sometimes check raising for value in the same spot, which I think would be a pretty good line. From our perspective, if we have the flush, it makes sense for us to check the turn because there are lots of hands our opponents will check behind, but call a river bet with. Similarly if he bets, any heart river + potentially any more straight cards are going to kill our action, so it makes sense for us to try and get some more money in OTT.

I think the whole check-raising ploy is based around how confident we are that he doesn't have a flush/10,9, and given the way the hand's gone so far I'm really struggling to put him on either of those two hands, whilst by comparison we've flatted from the SB so can potentially have quite a few suited-connector type hands. My reasoning is that for this to work we more or less need to check-raise the turn and barrel any non-paired river, because many even nominally decent players will call the turn more or less knowing they won't call the river.

I think a lot of the time even the top his range (sets) folds to this play, because our range is so polarised and there's so little else than we can have called with OTF.

I think check/calling the turn is probably the worst play possible. From the looks of it he might have some thing like in his range, but I don't think it's a big part of it. As played it seems fairly unlikely that he has a made flush given that he's betting around 80% of the pot on the turn and you've not really shown enormous strength. To me it looks more as though he's just looking to shut the hand down, so I think most of the time you're looking at something like   ,   etc. So the problem with check-calling is that you almost certainly don't have the best hand, and it's pretty hard to see how you're going to get any more money if you draw out.

Check-raise could be an okay play given the stack sizes. You can make it 5k and leave yourself 9.8k for a barrel on the end, but I think check/fold is probably the best move given the choice between two barrelling the whole stack or letting the 2600 go.

An interest move is leading the turn for say 1200 and betting 3k on the end. I think you fold out a lot of the same hands, but it's much cheaper.

Tell me if this is correct or not, using the trial below:

QT   27.40%   158,606   12,525
50%   28.73%   164,684   16,364
15%   43.86%   255,329   16,630

I win the whole pot 27.4% of the time, which given the pot is 352, is +96.45

I also win the side pot (184) whenever the BB wins the main pot, and I beat the other hand. In order to break even this needs to be me at least +23.55

So the break even equation is 0.2873 * (odds of my hand beating other hand) * 184 = 23.55

Doing the maths, to break even my hand needs to beat the hand I'm called by 44.5% of the time to show a profit. That might be slightly too generous, but it seems to me that even if it is spewy it's only very marginally so.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not entirely familiar with the software though, so I'd definitely appreciate an explanation of the various numbers.

Hey guys, first hand post for me, so would appreciate peoples' thoughts.

I'm playing 1/2 at the G Casino Walsall, pretty late on the day, so standard super loose live game.

Solid reg limps UTG, looseish good reg calls UTG + 1, pretty tight reg calls UTG + 2, button calls (never seen him before, so no info). I have in the SB playing £120 (lost a few decent size pots in the last few orbits) and call. Super spewy fish in the BB moves in for £28 having just lost a huge pot. UTG flats, as does everyone else (lolz, classic live limp/call 14BB) comes back around to me, I shove for the £120.

What do people think?

My thought process is this, BB pretty much has any two, and the rest of the table knows this. From knowing the players I'm absolutely sure that neither UTG, UTG +1 or UTG + 2 have a big hand, and I similarly know that none of them is passing A5s, 87s, 44, J10o to the BB's shove. UTG in particular I'm sure is quite weak, as I believe he'd be 3betting QJ or better. UTG + 2 is pretty tight, so while I think he may well call the £120 with something like QJ, I don't think that there are any hands in his range that he's overcalling somebody else with. UTG + 1 as I say is pretty loose and not afraid to gamble, so again I expect him to call with potentially as low as J9 + any pair. When I put all this together, the jist of the situation is that I think I have very little chance of getting all folds, but an excellent chance of getting only 1 call from a hand I'm fairly unlikely to be worse than 44% against. In return I'm getting £84 of dead money in the pot.

To me this seems like a fairly standard shove with my stack, but people were literally coming over from other tables to tell me how bad my play was. Their main complaint seemed to be that my hand looks weak, and I agree my hand does look weak, but I think this is rather beside the point since my aim is never to get all folds, and I don't think any of the players in the hand are likely to be overcalling one another, and thus I'm very likely to end up with exactly 1 caller.

Well with regards to your question about what he thinks you have, I think it's pretty unlikely he thinks you have the hand you have. When you check back the turn, your most likely holdings for me are, in no particular order:

1) Two spades
2) Complete air
3) Made house with 44/33

Given that that's the case, he shouldn't really be check/raising for value with 67, so your biggest questions involve what you think he's likely to play pre-flop, and what he's likely to check/call the flop with.

Is he the kind to flat from the SB with ? Would he then flat the flop with any set/2 pair? One hand that makes some sort of sense is  , but by not betting the turn you make it pretty hard to conclusively put him on anything. In your spot I'm just going to ask the question is this player capable of making this move in this spot? If so then I'm going to try and bluff catch.

Yeah you're not wrong, I just think it speaks to why there's more value in flatting, and ta for the welcome! There's a good chance we do know each other, do you play in the Gala much?

TBH I think losing no more than the original £60 is a pretty generous assumption of what happens when he flats. Bear in mind we're losing another 60 more or less every time the board comes K or Q high, he checks, we're obliged to bet, and get called/raised, as well as passing everytime we make nothing on the flop and he leads, or we check back the flop and he leads. Ok we make a bit of cash when its K or Q high and he flats with JJ and we then check back twice, and we make some good money when we get the odd miracle, but we also lost a good chunk when we make two pair and he shows QQ or KK. All in all, pretty hard to argue we're making money post flop when he's flatted our 4bet OOP.

Open to 10 is obviously fine.

Rest of hand depends a little bit on what you think the straddle's calling range out of the straddle. Given that this is live cash I'm just assuming I'm ahead of the short stack. Given that there are quite a few combi straight-flush draws out there I'm probably going to flat and get it in on any non-club turn.