Who makes this flop call?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
With this large a field, what are the advantages of betting this flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mainly to see the turn for cheaper. You 3-bet pre-flop. Now betting into this board will make it tough for anyone without some real goods to raise you.

On the other hand, if you just check, people might raise and re-raise w/ much less.

[Ulysses]

Why no river check-raise? Your turn cold-call feels most like AsQs to me and I can't imagine anyone with a Jack not betting the river, though a JT could easily just call a bet expecting to now chop w/ QJ, KJ, etc.

[Philuva]

I was pretty sure CO had the straight. I wasn't sure about the 2 MP hands but figured they had a set or 2 pair.

I figured if I went for the CR. MP's would both check and CO would bet. Then MP's would probably fold w/o a J when I raised.

I was hoping to bet, both MP's call and have the CO raise think he was gaining value even with a chopped pot. Then I could 3 bet.

I really expected at the worst that all 3 would call. Which I would rather than a disastrous checked through.

[Vehn]

I like a river bet here a helluva lot more than an attempted checkraise, and I go for river check raises a lot more than most I would guess. This isn't the spot.

[astroglide]

i don't make the preflop reraise out of position with high cards that are very likely no good. having many opponents, several of whom you may knock out, is not enough justification for me to chop my own flush odds down.

[David Sklansky]

It's right to call. It's better to come out betting. I have written someplace that I once bet 87 of hearts into eight players when the pot was capped preflop and it came TT5 with one heart. Same principle here.

[Ulysses]

I skimmed the results and thought MP was the one firing the last barrel and CO was calling, in which case I definitely like a checkraise. With CO as the last aggressor, I agree that a river bet is better.

Having said that, I've seen people call two cold w/ a pretty wide range of hands at the end (even when they know they can't be good) when the pot gets this big, so maybe a checkraise attempt isn't all that bad.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand or like the preflop 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my initial thought. By three betting, you cut down your implied odds for the flush and risk ending up HU against an hand that may well dominate you.

[Ed Miller]

That was my initial thought. By three betting, you cut down your implied odds for the flush and risk ending up HU against an hand that may well dominate you.

There is zero "risk" of being headsup. However, if there were such a risk, I would most definitely 3-bet. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] All that dead money in the pot provides plenty of overlay to take the worst of it after the flop.

I don't think the 3-bet is terrible... I just prefer not to bloat the pot before the flop too much from the blinds unless I have a real big edge over the field (i.e. AA or KK basically.. AKs also). The reason is that most players make more expensive mistakes after the flop in small pots than they do in big pots. Like, for instance, that our hero should call three cold with his gutshot, overcard, and backdoor flush. Also, with a hand like AJs, I'd prefer to have the probable flop bet coming from my right rather than from me.

[James282]

David,
How did you manage to get into a capped pot with 87s, out of curiosity? The guy who wrote the "Sklansky ate my Brain" article on poversavvy.com specifically criticizes your advice because you don't think it's right to play 76s in a capped pot. Did it happen something like..UTG limps, UTG+1 Raises, cold-called to you in the BB and you call, UTG now reraises, UTG+1 caps and it's called to you, getting 26-1 odds on calling 2 more bets? I also don't understand why you would bet into the field with that hand against 8 opponents, your draw doesn't seem to be very strong. I understand the logic behind betting into the field in the posted hand, however.
-James