Live £1/£2. Flopped nuts OOP on a wet board.

[stato_1]

Squeeze pre >>>>>>>>>>> fold> call

Mine would be literally the complete mirror image of this

[muckthenuts]

Squeeze pre >>>>>>>>>>> fold> call

Defo not this. You're almost always getting peeled by Father G and the limpers then we're oop with Thigh vs a bunch of people, all with hands that can dominate us, we're rarely dominating, we aren't suited and don't flop well. I'm certain that squeezing pre is the worst option.

Fold/complete pretty close.

Yeah +1. Completing is okish here i suppose cos we're deep with bad players in the pot

[pleno1]

why don't we want to squeeze?

genuinely very interested as its definitely my standard in these spots, but if folding/calling is better would definitely be happy to reconsider as its definitely a regular thing n live cash games.

[muckthenuts]

Squeezing the button would be fine.

[pleno1]

Squeezing the button would be fine.

yeh its not even questionable imo.

[muckthenuts]

Just everything Alex said about why we can't do it oop. People don't fold and it just gets messy. It's added variance you don't always need in a soft live game.

[pleno1]

so we think their limping range = their calling range to the squeeze? i definitely disagree here and if we get HU to a flop then its totally fine. just flopzilla a limp behind live range, its going to be awful. we can double barrel and show a profit im sure.

[muckthenuts]

I'm sure it would be +ev, but do you really need to take such a high variance line in a very good game like this? Additionally if the guy thinks his dad will peel can guarantee the limpers will as well

[pleno1]

I'm sure it would be +ev, but do you really need to take such a high variance line in a very good game like this? Additionally if the guy thinks his dad will peel can guarantee the limpers will as well

if its +ev then yes. folding/calling probably -ev so its taking the best optimal line in the hand right? if we make it 30 here or something i very much doubt we will ever get more than 2 callers, and probably very very rarely get more than 1. their ranges are super weak here.

[muckthenuts]

I'm sure it would be +ev, but do you really need to take such a high variance line in a very good game like this? Additionally if the guy thinks his dad will peel can guarantee the limpers will as well

if its +ev then yes. folding/calling probably -ev so its taking the best optimal line in the hand right? if we make it 30 here or something i very much doubt we will ever get more than 2 callers, and probably very very rarely get more than 1. their ranges are super weak here.

We really will, if the first guy peels then every fishes favourite word "value" comes into play and we're 4way oop most of the time. Cbet £75 and even if we get one caller it becomes messy straight away. We just don't need it.

There is value in not wanting to get in a £600 hole, with the fish then suddenly realising he's got to leave, when we simply could do the standard make hands get paid in this game.

[Honeybadger]

Whether a squeeze (it's a limped pot isn't it so not 'really' a squeeze) is good or not depends completely on the texture of the game and your image at that precise moment. Sometimes you just 'know' that everyone is playing snug right now and you've got a good chance of it getting through (or of getting only one caller and then making a profitable cbet on a ton of flops). Other times it is clear that the whole table is in no fold'em mode, in which case a squeeze would be utter suicide. Often the most important factor is your feel/read on the first couple of players to act after your squeeze (in this case it would just be Ian cos there aren't that many players in the pot)... because if one of these guys calls you are almost guaranteed a domino effect.

In the right spot a squeeze can be profitable in this type of game but, like I said, things have to feel just right. When I am playing well I make this move about once a session (I'm talking about squeezing after a raiser, rather than limpers as in the actual hh) in a loose weak game like this and almost always get away with it because I have judged things just right. When I am off my game a little I often try this move at the wrong time and feel like a complete muppet. So it is all situational. However, IMO in general a squeeze is usually going to be a slightly losing play in a loose 1/2 NL game full of cally wallys. And of course if a raise does not seem profitable at this precise moment then we have a nice easy call preflop, even though unsuited.

I agree that this would be much better on the button, and I'd need a reason NOT to make the play rather than a reason TO make the play. Also I think that in this texture of game this works much better in a limped pot like this one rather than in a raised pot where you are 3bet squeezing. Tbh, provided you don't need to make concessions to variance (and that's a big IF, since we all do) this is the sort of play that you should often just be going ahead with if you are unsure one way or the other. Because it is never going to be absolutely terrible, and it will put you in spots that will help you learn and improve.

Postflop... Ed you seem to be thinking about this situation the wrong way with all this 'raising would just put me in a coffin' stuff. This would be the right way of thinking about things if you'd flopped the nuts with no redraw on this board at PLO (in which case BTW, depending on the action you should very often check-fold given your position and stack depth). But you can't be as scared of monsters under the bed at NL. And even less so when you're worrying about future monsters under the bed. Leading is fine, but I'd lead BIG - perhaps even for an overbet. You're likely to get at least one or two callers on this texture of flop even with a very big bet, especially as I'd presume a fair few of your opponents are not even remotely price sensitive. Check-raising is also fine, but again... check raise really big, for the same reasons.

[cambridgealex]

I'm sure it would be +ev, but do you really need to take such a high variance line in a very good game like this? Additionally if the guy thinks his dad will peel can guarantee the limpers will as well

I'm sure it wouldn't.

There'd have to be pretty specific circumstances / ppl in the pot to make this a +EV squeeze pre. In 99% of live cash lineups this is mega spew.

[stato_1]

I'm sure it would be +ev, but do you really need to take such a high variance line in a very good game like this? Additionally if the guy thinks his dad will peel can guarantee the limpers will as well

if its +ev then yes. folding/calling probably -ev so its taking the best optimal line in the hand right? if we make it 30 here or something i very much doubt we will ever get more than 2 callers, and probably very very rarely get more than 1. their ranges are super weak here.

Don't think calling is going to be -ev in this game, and if folding is -ev I'll give you the money myself

[edgascoigne]

Thank you very much for such a well constructed and helpful post Mr HoneyBadger.

Whether a squeeze (it's a limped pot isn't it so not 'really' a squeeze) is good or not depends completely on the texture of the game and your image at that precise moment. Sometimes you just 'know' that everyone is playing snug right now and you've got a good chance of it getting through (or of getting only one caller and then making a profitable cbet on a ton of flops). Other times it is clear that the whole table is in no fold'em mode, in which case a squeeze would be utter suicide. Often the most important factor is your feel/read on the first couple of players to act after your squeeze (in this case it would just be Ian cos there aren't that many players in the pot)... because if one of these guys calls you are almost guaranteed a domino effect.

Was confident that if I squeezed here I am picking up a couple of calls most of the time. Also there is the very real possibility that my dad 'sits me down' with a re-raise cos he knows there is a real possibility I am squeezing light.

Postflop... Ed you seem to be thinking about this situation the wrong way with all this 'raising would just put me in a coffin' stuff. This would be the right way of thinking about things if you'd flopped the nuts with no redraw on this board at PLO (in which case BTW, depending on the action you should very often check-fold given your position and stack depth). But you can't be as scared of monsters under the bed at NL. And even less so when you're worrying about future monsters under the bed. Leading is fine, but I'd lead BIG - perhaps even for an overbet. You're likely to get at least one or two callers on this texture of flop even with a very big bet, especially as I'd presume a fair few of your opponents are not even remotely price sensitive. Check-raising is also fine, but again... check raise really big, for the same reasons.

Not seeing monsters under the bed - realise my post probably came across rather negatively for a man who had just flopped the nuts 4-way. This was just a result of poor explanation on my part rather than my feelings towards the hand.

Leading with an overbet was something I didn't really consider. To be honest I'm not sure I even thought about leading for too long - felt quite out of flow with the game to date and the check-raise felt a lot more 'natural', though of course that isn't to say such an option is correct!! Think mentioned previously also that I was yet to lead oop in the session so perhaps there was an element of me wanting to keep actions consistent here.


So...in summary and as played, our options are:

(A) Lead flop big for an overbet.
(B) Check-raise flop big, with a plan to bet-fold scary turns/rivers?

Regards option B, is one of the benefits of check-raising really big that theoretically we fold out all but the strongest of draws making bet-folding on possible scare cards through the streets easier?

[Honeybadger]

Regards option B, is one of the benefits of check-raising really big that theoretically we fold out all but the strongest of draws making bet-folding on possible scare cards through the streets easier?

I reckon you are thinking about things the wrong way Ed, a little back to front in fact. We don't want to 'fold out all but the strongest of draws'. We want an opponent to call our big bet with whatever made hand and/or draw he holds. On a flop like this it is extremely likely at least one opponent has a pair or a draw, and it is also pretty likely someone will have some sort of combo hand like a pair plus gutshot or similar. My advice to bet really big was not to force opponents to fold these types of hands. On the contrary, it was based on the fact that most weaker players will NEVER fold hands like this on the flop, no matter what price you charge them... so let's take advantage of their likely lack of price sensitivity by making them put a TON of money in the pot with hands that are worse than ours. This is precisely the type of flop on which opponents' calling ranges are likely to be extremely inelastic (i.e. they will call a big bet with the same ranges as they will call a small bet). Their ranges shouldn't be inelastic on this type of flop, but they usually will be. So we bet really big to exploit this, not to force them to fold.

Reading between the lines, it looks like you may be a little too concerned about losing a big pot (I'm not specifically talking about this hand, more my inferences from some of the things you have said in this thread). You should stop worrying about this. Sometimes the most profitable play makes it more likely that you will lose a big pot. But you still need to take the most profitable line even when this is true.