Should I call this flop 3bet jam?
Hi all,
I was playing some $2/$5 at my local casino last night; a nice limpy action game.
Action folds to the Lojack, a loose aggressive player, who limps in for $5 off a $455 stack. I'm on the button and look down at 6♣5♣. I want to isolate and play pots in position against the Lojack. I have his stack covered; I go to $30 and he calls. (I realize this is a larger than usual size for raising limpers - I used $22/$25 in the past, but that size is not enough to get folds from the remaining players in this game; so I've been defaulting to $30).
The flop comes 6♥5♥2♥ and villain leads for $40. My main concern at this point is protecting my hand against semi bluffs (as this villain loves playing flush draws aggressively) so I raise to $125. He tanks for a long while and makes a couple of comments like "what am I meant to do here?" and then rips it for $425.
Hero...?
I would just fold after the speech and the long hollywood tank followed by a 3bet/jam. This is almost always the nuts and if it's not a flush it could be a set. Draws aren't doing this hardly ever (which is all we beat except bottom two which is unlikely) and I woulda just flatted the flop (FWIW I wouldn't bet 22 in 2/5, either bet 20 or 25 it's much better for your image).
I don't understand why you want to isolate a LAG and bloat the pot with 65s?
I would just fold after the speech and the long hollywood tank followed by a 3bet/jam. This is almost always the nuts and if it's not a flush it could be a set. Draws aren't doing this hardly ever (which is all we beat except bottom two which is unlikely) and I woulda just flatted the flop (and FWIW I wouldn't bet 22 in 2/5, either bet 20 or 25 it's much better for your image).
Sure, thanks for the feedback.
It also crossed my mind that he might do this with some overpairs that contain a diamond, against which I have enough equity to call (33% required given the jam size).
Because he's a fishy player and as indicated I want to play pots against him when I'm in position. I'm going to isolate with a large range of hands, including some suited connectors such as 65s.
Sure, thanks for the feedback.
It also crossed my mind that he might do this with some overpairs that contain a diamond, against which I have enough equity to call (33% required given the jam size).
A LAG isn't really open limping an over pair in the LJ, but he's probably limping any suited hand though.
Trying to isolate a LAG with 6-high when you're less than 100 BBs deep...seems ill-advised.
What is your logic for this being ill-advised?
The idea is to raise with a relatively linear range that's balanced and provides board coverage; this is going to include 65s some of the time.
I'm going to be that guy. You flopped top 2 pair and you have no idea how to react to a shove. I'd argue that's why.
Raising PF is fine. He's getting on the short end for the implied odds of 65s to really come into play, but isolating a bad player IP with a playable hand is good.
As played I am happy to fold flop to the shove. Speeches like that are incredibly nutted for most of the population. I may just call flop as the turn is going to change equities quite a bit and I'd rather have better equity before I pile in money.
What is your logic for this being ill-advised?
The idea is to raise with a relatively linear range that's balanced and provides board coverage; this is going to include 65s some of the time.
I think it's on you to provide the logic of bloating the pot with 6-high to isolate an aggressive player, rather than to flat and take a flop in position with a hand that plays better multiway.
pf too big, blinds over defending isn't a big deal nor is isolating the LJ. Call flop to keep his range wide. As played call, raise/folding top two vs a player that "loves to play his flush draws aggressively" is just terrible, raise/calling at least has some amount of logic.
I'm going to be that guy. You flopped top 2 pair and you have no idea how to react to a shove. I'd argue that's why.
It's not just any two pair though; the monotone board is obviously a huge factor. I think this spot is pretty close vs a LAG and that's why I'm interested to hear what others think.
Raising PF is fine. He's getting on the short end for the implied odds of 65s to really come into play, but isolating a bad player IP with a playable hand is good.
As played I am happy to fold flop to the shove. Speeches like that are incredibly nutted for most of the population. I may just call flop as the turn is going to change equities quite a bit and I'd rather have better equity before I pile in money.
Sure, those are fair points. I was concerned with protecting my hand vs semibluff donks but in hindsight calling is probably a better idea.
Sure, those are fair points. I was concerned with protecting my hand vs semibluff donks but in hindsight calling is probably a better idea.
Raising does have merits, it does protect against hands with good equity that might fold (I suppose something like JhTx that villian is blasting around with). Or get value from hands we're beating like 77 or Ah8x or whatever. But it does really suck to get 3-bet; his speech made it easy, since we can reduce his bluff combos given how exploitative that sort of mannerisms are for most recs. Even if he didn't make a speech, we're never really excited to get it all in here, since we're either drawing to 4 outs or villian has 30%+ equity at worst.
I think it's on you to provide the logic of bloating the pot with 6-high to isolate an aggressive player, rather than to flat and take a flop in position with a hand that plays better multiway.
I'm not in the business of limping along and playing low stakes bingo. IMO the only way to play this hand is to isolate and go into postflop play with a range advantage; that's a much more profitable setup than playing 4-ways with a non-nutted hand where everyone has capped ranges. I imagine it's higher EV to raise and isolate than it is to limp.
If you're just going to make critical ad hominem comments without backing up your arguments with logic then there is not much point in commenting.
flop raise is bad. you cannot protect against any decent draw here so just call and see what the turn brings. esp because if you get 3b you have no idea if you are against the nuts, an overplayed hand, or a semibluff. i dont think you should be raising any hand here on the flop TBH.
i think 65s plays terribly multiway, fwiw, so pre seems fine to try and get it HU. i think folding pre would be better than limping behind.
Raising does have merits, it does protect against hands with good equity that might fold (I suppose something like JhTx that villian is blasting around with). Or get value from hands we're beating like 77 or Ah8x or whatever. But it does really suck to get 3-bet; his speech made it easy, since we can reduce his bluff combos given how exploitative that sort of mannerisms are for most recs. Even if he didn't make a speech, we're never really
Sure, the idea was to protect against/get value from those hands I'm currently ahead of but vulnerable against.
It absolutely does suck to get 3bet yes. What I took from his speech was that he was genuinely unsure what to do, rather than Hollywooding, which led me to conclude that he was also protecting his hand - the question though was what hand strength exactly was he protecting? Of course small flushes cam to mind, but as I thought it through I realised that he might also do this with some overpairs that include a diamond, as well as the obvious Ahxx and Khxx hands.
I definitely wasn't excited to get it in here but the price was pretty good; I only need 33% to call so I can call and lose six times out of ten and still make a profit.
flop raise is bad. you cannot protect against any decent draw here so just call and see what the turn brings. esp because if you get 3b you have no idea if you are against the nuts, an overplayed hand, or a semibluff. i dont think you should be raising any hand here on the flop TBH.
i think 65s plays terribly multiway, fwiw, so pre seems fine to try and get it HU. i think folding pre would be better than limping behind.
Thanks - yes I agree; in hindsight calling on the flop is definitely the better option. I like to isolate pretty wide against bad players and agree that it's much more preferable to limping along.
Pride goeth before the fall, I guess. I don't turn down +EV situations because of some misguided axiom that "real men don't overlimp."
I don't like playing multiway pots that basically handcuff you from bluffing effectively; everyone has to play face up in those situations. IMO it's much more preferable and profitable to isolate and play heads up in position against a bad player with a capped range. In other words, even if limping is +EV (which is by no means the case) - raising to isolate a capped range and playing in position is significantly higher EV. If you look at your stats in Poker Tracker you will find that playing these limped pots in position when raising vs a limper is the most profitable setup in the game.
I'm not in the business of limping along and playing low stakes bingo. IMO the only way to play this hand is to isolate and go into postflop play with a range advantage; that's a much more profitable setup than playing 4-ways with a non-nutted hand where everyone has capped ranges. I imagine it's higher EV to raise and isolate than it is to limp.
If you're just going to make critical ad hominem comments without backing up your arguments with
Having a bad, loose aggressive player ahead of you is Generally a Good Thing. It doesn’t change the fact that suited connectors need implied odds. If you are looking to widen your range in position against this kind of player you should choose hands that can bluff catch over hands that need to bluff.
