Razz: folding on 4th street

NBourbaki · #1 07-21-2007, 02:37 AM

A question to Example 6 of the Razz Problems in SOP.

hero: (26)7T
villian: (xx)73

villian: bets
hero: folds

Sklansky states that calling would be -EV and that a 97 instead of the T7 would be break-even.

How is this determind? Is this an intuitiv statement derived from years of playing experience or is it possible to give some mathematical reasoning behind it?

I tried a simulation at www.pokertools.com putting villians starting hand on (8- 8- 7). It gives a 34% probability of winning for hero. Depending on the number of players at the table and the ante strukture calling would give hero 34% of a pot containig more than 5,6 SBs (Full Tilt 8/16, full table).
So if there would be no further betting rounds, it would be clearly profitable for hero to call. (It t would be even more profitable if we take into account that there is some probability that the 3 paired villian.)
Is there any methode to estimate the effect of further betting rounds? Any flaws in this reasoning?

keebler61 · #2 07-21-2007, 02:56 AM

Well, you have to look at the money not yet put in. If you've got a pot of 2 or 3 BBs, and you've got to make the call of 3 additional BBs to show it down. It's important to note that it's heads up at this point. You and this man are the only two putting money in the pot. I would not like to be getting my money here as a 2:1 dog when the the amount of money you're putting in is only being matched in a 1:1 ratio.

Furthermore, you stand to lose a few more BBs if you hit a second best 7 low, which is a real posibility in this hand. I agree with dumping it.

DJ Sensei · #3 07-21-2007, 04:00 AM

ummm what was 3rd street action, it seems pretty relevant to the discussion (both for pot size and for hand-reading)

NBourbaki · #4 07-21-2007, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ummm what was 3rd street action, it seems pretty relevant to the discussion (both for pot size and for hand-reading)

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been no double raise on 3rd street.

Although not explicitly stated I would asume that none of the opponents made the bring in, and that none was in a steal position.