[greggg230]

[ QUOTE ]
Gregg, I don't know about your calculations (I'm really no expert at those) but you your basic assumption (that the opponent played a big set) can't be right. Tagdieb also discarded 3 cards.

In my opinion, when you draw 3 and make a full house and your opponent also drew 3, the correct way to play is going broke and leave the table with a bad beat story. On the other hand, in this situation there were enough raises and re-raises (min-raises) to put him on a hand more accurately. I guess after villain moved all in after your re-re-raise he could be put on a few hands: AAA, Quads or a full house (better than yours because you have a really low one).
Still, the chances to turn a 3 CD into a full house are about 1:80 as far as I can remember. It was a miracle that you hit that draw, can't expect another one to do the same in this very hand. I call this every day....(and am frustrated, hating PL, saying I'd only play FL [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I'm not saying villain had trips before the draw - he obviously didn't.

The fact that it would require a miracle for two players to hit a full house isn't really relevant here. The fact that hero drew a full house has no significant effect upon whether villain did, too - they're (more or less) independent events. The question is: What hands is villain going to play this way? My basic assumption is that he'll rarely play a set this way (say, 20% of the time) and always play a full house or better this way. So regardless of how unlikely it is that he drew a full house in the abstract, once he goes all-in, it becomes quite likely he does have a full house (close to 50% if I'm right about how often he'd play a set like this).

That said, your conclusion is to call and go broke and my conclusion is to . . . also call and go broke (that's what the math says, too).