[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
You say that you are against 2 opponents when you do your analysis, but I think that is not really right. There were 5 opponents who saw the flop. If, and I am assuming your math is correct, each has a roughly 4% chance of being dealt KcXc, then it is more like 20% likely that someone had KcXc.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Jim - Good point.

My thinking is someone does not necessarily see the flop with a hand containing a suited king. That's the main thing. But then also, someone does not necessarily continue after a flop like this one with a suited king. (This flop has three low cards so that there's almost surely going to be a split with low).

It depends very much on the individual opponents, but I think there's a reasonable chance that if someone was dealt a hand with a suited king, that hand may very well have made it to the muck before the flop, and if not then, possibly after the flop.

A suited ace would be a different matter.

Still, you have a very good point, one I wrestled with myself.

As simulated against five non-folding opponents with random cards (100,000 deals), Hero has a total pot equity of about 40.7%, mainly because of the split with low. You're right about "closer to 20%." Hero wins with the 2nd nut flush 80186 times and loses to the nut flush 19814 times.

(One or both opponents have the nut low 40083 times. Thus by raising, if someone will fold a non nut low to a raise on the river, Hero has a fair chance of improving to a scooper, or even stealing the low if the one opponent does have the nut flush.)

I calculated/approximated for the 92%, but as long as I have the hand/board set up, I might as well run the same sim with two non-folding opponents. As simulated against two non-folding opponents with random cards (100,000 deals), Hero has a total pot equity of about 55.9%, again mainly because of the split with low. And Hero wins with the 2nd nut flush 91954 times and loses to the nut flush 8046 times.

In general, people have more expertise in terms of playing for low than for high, and with five opponents seeing the flop, I'd expect the two who continued had the best low draws of the five. Thus the simulation for low is better against five non-folding opponents than two. But i don't think that's true of the simulation for a king flush with no ace on the flop.

But you do have a very good point. I'll concede it's opponent dependent.

[ QUOTE ]
This ignores the more or less imposible task of knowing if some opponents would (correctly IMHO) fold KcXc with little else here and so forth. At these limits, I'd guess none of them would fold it.

[/ QUOTE ]I considered not responding because of the low limits. My thinking is always it terms of having reasonably logical opponents who know the game reasonably well or better.

[ QUOTE ]
I do, however, agree that raising here is a good thing. Now a live deuce behind me should fold So should 2 pair and sets.

[/ QUOTE ]I think you give an opponent more of a chance to make a mistake when you raise. I'm not sure an opponent behind you with those hands "should" fold, but he/she does have a more difficult choice when facing a double bet with the possibility of another double bet to follow.

And if the original bettor is one of those fools who think betting and then folding if raised is a good play, maybe Hero scoops.

[ QUOTE ]
I expect the man betting out just made a low, but maybe has a K high flush I may lose a paying custumer, but I think I will promote my low or protect my high enough to make this right. Getting nitty about sucking 1 player in here is overly greedy.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully I won't face a cold-call then a re-raise. Since the cold call could easily be a mistake (caling with a weaker flush, 2 pair, or a set), I'd be forced to call down, but I no like it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed.

Buzz