Re: PLO 3/6, semi deep, river
 

@Blopp

I think that as well, a super nice move IMO

@Iggy

Hate a flop raise bc we have to fold to a 3 bet and would hate to build a pot with such a marginal hand, would like to protect my stack instead!

Re: PLO 3/6, semi deep, river
 

How often do you think villain's 3-betting here? If he 3-bets this flop with sets only (a pretty reasonable range this deep), it's probably about 5% of his range. Unless he's super-aggro, I wouldn't worry too much. Even if he does, you usually have 10 outs in position. I wouldn't fold to a 3-bet here anyway.

Re: PLO 3/6, semi deep, river
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I call without reads always. When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff and you get great pot odds. I put villain on a set + naked ace or a low-end straight + naked ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your logic of why this is almost always a naked ace bluff. Is it a math thing? If so could you please explain it to me - I feel kind of stupid. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We get something like 1:2.7 or so on our money, so the call should be righ only ~30% of the time to be profitable. We have 3 diamonds in our hand and there is three in the board. Also villain could be valuebetting worse diamonds, we have Jd. Call without reads. We have enough left on the river for villain to think that big bet puts our hand to the muck. If we had less than $400 left, I´d consider folding way more often.

Also if this flop would have been seen 3-ways, I´d consider folding much more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously understand the question of pot-odds, but was asking if there was maths to prove that "When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff" or is it just the fact that we have three diamonds and there are three diamonds on the board? Obviously that makes it less likely that he has any diamonds, but why is it almost always a naked ace bluff compared to the nut flush?

Re: PLO 3/6, semi deep, river
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I call without reads always. When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff and you get great pot odds. I put villain on a set + naked ace or a low-end straight + naked ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your logic of why this is almost always a naked ace bluff. Is it a math thing? If so could you please explain it to me - I feel kind of stupid. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We get something like 1:2.7 or so on our money, so the call should be righ only ~30% of the time to be profitable. We have 3 diamonds in our hand and there is three in the board. Also villain could be valuebetting worse diamonds, we have Jd. Call without reads. We have enough left on the river for villain to think that big bet puts our hand to the muck. If we had less than $400 left, I´d consider folding way more often.

Also if this flop would have been seen 3-ways, I´d consider folding much more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously understand the question of pot-odds, but was asking if there was maths to prove that "When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff" or is it just the fact that we have three diamonds and there are three diamonds on the board? Obviously that makes it less likely that he has any diamonds, but why is it almost always a naked ace bluff compared to the nut flush?

[/ QUOTE ]

You just said it yourself - there´s already 6 diamonds out there, and this is HU situation post-flop, so mathematically it is not very likely that villain has two diamonds. If he is willing to bet that river big, it´s usually Ad as a bluff, this time it was air.