[Closed] IP on tilting fish

almost out of money? he had at least 7,5BB left which is the most cases enough (as you can see ^^)

Preflop is ok. The flop too.

But on the turn no straight or flush draw will fold and a weak 6 will only calldown. I don't raise here anymore. Because MP3 3-bettet preflop and capped the flop he seems to have an overpair and only 99 you can beat. (not even that on the river) After the 3-bet on trhe turn I'm sure you are beat but you created such a bit pot that you have to calldown.

But maybe I'm totally wrong...

I think preflop is the key here. Preflop, I'm pretty sure I have the best hand. Everyone limps in, including our aggressive MP3. Now, why would he limp here, if he had a good hand? He only has one player to come behind him, everyone else is in in front of him and their money is already in. He should raise here, and I am sure he would have, had he a good hand and he knew how to play. I raise, because pocket tens is a good hand, and raising is correct here. I will almost certainly have to fold if overcards fall on the flop, but still have to raise. But then this guy reraises! Why? If he was UTG or so, a limp raise may mean a strong hand, but from this position? He might have 7.5BB, but he once had a lot more, and it is going. He doesn't play well, and I correctly assessed this as lashing out in frustration.

Here I should cap immediately. I want to play this guy, but would like the others to get out of the way, as they may in fact have something that could threaten me. By simply calling this reraise, I didn't even ask them to question the value of their hands even a little bit. I allowed them to enter the pot for "only" one more bet. Gotta go to work now, I will continue this thought later.

OK, I had another look. There were 3 folds after my flop raise. This doesn't alter my assessment of what this guys behaviour indicated. He was clueless, and betting any two cards, with no idea of why any two were better than any other two. He speculates blindly on this hand, and when some bozo (me) raises his rubbish, he just loses it and lashes out in a rage.

My tens are strong, but very vulnerable to overcards. If two overcards come on the flop, and I face this action, I fold. With this flop, maybe someone has pocket fives, maybe someone has a six. But overcards remain unimproved, which is a great plus for my hand. I felt sure that the flop 3-bet would get rid of most of them, and was very concerned when I still had 4 opponents on the turn. But the opponent I am least concerned with is MP3, I want to play against him.

The turn seems an obvious indication that these guys are all just drawing, and want to limp to the river to see if they can get lucky there. If I check to this guy, then for one more bet, they all get another chance to draw out on me. Whatever crazy cards they've got. But I'm pretty sure no-one is holding pocket fives or even one six. When I raise this turn bet, it makes a pretty clear statement that seeing the river is going to cost them at least 3 bets, because this guy will obviously reraise, going on previous action. And if they call my raise and he reraises, I may cap, so it will actually be 4 bets each. And these are big bets now. So even for this size pot, it is too much for weak draws. They get that message. And it is probable that they also put him on a hand, and thought they had two big hands to beat.

I think my preflop was not strong enough, which meant I missed the opportunity to save myself some outs by folding one or more of these guys. The flop I couldn't do anything about, but the turn was absolutely the best play of this hand in my opinion. I read what was happening, and successfully leveraged this guys aggression to protect my holding.

What do you think about that?

The three players who folded on the turn must have had very weak holdings, given the size of the pot and their fold. ciRith is right that no draw will give up here against 2 bigbets. So you cant raise for protection (only against overcards), and if you raise, its more for value. And i dont see much value here. You have 3 coldcallers on the flop. Weak players usually call or coldcall their trips on the flop to checkraise the turn. So i see myself callin down here. It is verly lucky all 3 players folded the turn, as the river is the second worst card (after the 7 :club:).

Originally posted by aciddrop The flop I couldn't do anything about, but the turn was absolutely the best play of this hand in my opinion. I read what was happening, and successfully leveraged this guys aggression to protect my holding.

What do you think about that?

I think your hand was very weak. Considering preflop action you were correct to assume that noone has pair higher then TT eventhough that 3-bet was kind of strange. Capping with TT against 4 players would be stupid so nothing wrong here.
But with such board and 4 other players reraising flop you were very lucky nobody had 6 or 7 or flush draw in their hand. I think calling down would be better option despite it might cost you a pot coz in most cases you would lose pot anyway.

I have to have one more go at this. I can't leave it alone.

Page 264 of Small Stakes Hold 'em has a sample hand that relates to this preflop action. The recommendation against a limp-reraiser in this situation, though with a slightly different hand, is cap preflop, and I agree with that for the reasons given. I have to add, that I have a special read on MP3 here. He is foolish, and has gone on tilt bigtime. I believe isolation play against him here is correct. The early players are passive callingstations. They called one bet without hesitation, and maybe will call two more the same. But they may reconsider, and one or two may have folded to that. Impossible to say for sure, but preflop, the cap was still the correct play I believe.

On the turn the passive players all check to MP3. He will bet all the way to a cap if given the opportunity, regardless of what his hand is. It is going to cost me, at a minimum, two bets to see a showdown. The likely scenarios seem to be

1) The early players have made hands, eg sets, or strong draws, eg FD or OESD, and have indeed checked with the intention of reraising when the action comes back to them.

2) They don't have strong made hands, but have draws, but aren't aggressive players, and are worried about the previous action, so have played a wait and see game.

3) They have weak made hands, eg A5, K5, Q5 etc, or weak draws, or just overcards, and want to limp to the river, but have no stomach for major action on this more expensive street.

My decision is to pay my two bets now. I have been offered another chance to isolate the biggest fish. I didn't expect to get it, but having been offered it, I am seizing it with both hands. I don't want to limp to the river with four opponents. My showdown value is considerably diluted under those circumstances, particularly as we don't yet know what the river card will be. If scenario 1 is correct, I will be hammered when the action returns to the early players, and can happily fold, having spent my two bets here.

If scenario 2 or 3 are correct, I will most likely lose all or most of the early players, and my showdown chances are greatly improved, against just this one guy, very good.

Apparently, scenario 2 or 3 was correct. My investment of two bets on this turn, under these particular circumstances, was the best possible way to pay the money. By facing these players with the probability of minimum three bets, because we all know MP3 will reraise, they are asked the hard question now, and we see their answers. If the river card was one that would have given one of the early players the best hand, they were already gone.

I'm not trying to look for a standard play here, because I don't think this is a standard situation. I think I made the play that will have the most +EV in the long run.

The Small Stakes Holdem example differs from this situation. Here you have a very vulnerable hand in multywaypots. You would raise to get opponents out, instead of raising for value with KQs, which plays well in multiway pots. But i dont see a preflop cap achieving anything. Your opponents already called 2 bets cold, and they wont hesitate to do it again, given the pot odds. If you capped, the opponents would at least get 6:1. So capping just makes the pot bigger with a vulnerable hand. If you could protect, you should, but you just cant.

On the turn, if you look on the board, there really are many strong draws possible. So i think scenario 1) is more likely, but i dont think that with strong draws all the players would give action on the flop. They often play even their strong draws passiv with this preflop action. So on the turn all 3 scenarios are still possible fo every opponent. And even with scenario 2/3 you wont get the typical loose 0.25/0.50 player to fold if they get 10:1. It just was very unlikely, but happened. But for it to be the most +EV action it has to happen often enough, which i dont think it does.

Ok, I get the preflop reason. The pot equity of the two hands differs, particularly in multiway pots, so increasing the pot odds for these limpers would not be correct. I see that I can't protect a vulnerable hand by capping here. Pocket tens are just too susceptible to overcards when four opponents play.

On the turn, I agree that many draws are possible. Heart flush, Club flush, OESD for anyone with a seven. I don't believe anyone with a set or trips would fold here, so think that no-one held a six or a pair of fives. I certainly wouldn't fold if I held a set or one of the strong draws here. Even if it would cost me four bets on the turn, the odds are still ok, the pot is so large.

Having been there at the time, all I can say is the checks to the aggressive player felt like an admission of weakness, whether that was weak hands or weak resolve I don't know for sure. I was as certain as it is possible to be without seeing the cards that MP3 had nothing, so didn't have a worry about him at all. All I can think is that either the others had nothing, or thought that even if they made their draws, they were already beaten because of the aggression coming behind them. This was my advantage, being behind the maniac.

So, it is either paying at a minimum two bets (maybe more) to limp to a showdown I am extremely unlikely to win against four opponents, or paying the two bets now, and losing just as surely if there are monster hands out against me, but still not paying more than two bets, because I can fold to mass aggression. It seems to me that this way, I do give myself the best chance, as limping to a showdown seems an acceptance of defeat anyway.

These are my thoughts, and I need to express them because since I posted this hand, I have gone from playing 400-600 hands daily to not having played even one hand in the last week. I seem to have lost my stomach for it, and that worries me.