NFD faces a c/r

[Gib]

New to PLO.

Villain unknown.

Full Tilt Poker - Pot Limit Omaha Cash Game - $0.10/$0.25 Blinds - 6 Players - (LegoPoker Hand History Converter)

SB: $45.65
BB: $10.65
UTG: $14.60
Hero (MP): $32.50
CO: $26.40
BTN: $3.40

Preflop: Hero is dealt 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (6 Players)
UTG folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $0.85</font>, 2 folds, SB calls $0.75, BB calls $0.60

Flop: ($2.55) 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 Players)
SB checks, BB checks, <font color="red">Hero bets $1.25</font>, SB folds, <font color="red">BB raises to $6.30</font>, Hero?

[Buzz]

Gib - Does Villain have the set of kings his bet must represent or not?

That is the question.

Since Villain is unknown we have no idea.

Meanwhile you're getting 2 to 1 pot odds while the odds against you winning, should Villain actually have the set of kings his bet must represent are about 1.88 to 1 against you (as simulated).

You do not have favorable odds to raise, if Villain actually does have the set of kings. However, you do have favorable odds to call.

So yes, I think you do call here. (1) Villain may be bluffing and (2) if not, you have favorable odds to call.

Call.

Buzz

[darkcore]

take a closer look at the stacksizes.

i'd pot the shorty all-in.

[Gib]

I did call &amp; I guess a part of that reason was due to BB being short-stacked therefore I would only face a small bet on turn.

However if he had me covered, say 2x as much can I still call &amp; re-eval on turn?

[TheRempel]

The stack sizes are extremely important. Since the villain only has $4 left after his raise calling would be bad since you would be committed to calling any turn bet regardless of what comes off (pot would be $16 or so with $4 behind). Calling accomplishes absolutely nothing in this spot.

Unless you can be dead certain that he is raising you with a set you have to just stick it in. The times you are a 7:3 dog will be more than made up for when the you have him in similar shape.

[TheRempel]

It depends. If he is only raising sets and will shut down if a non pairing spade or ace comes off then its definitely not profitable to call. If he is only raising sets but will pay you off then its a must call.

Against an average opponent that can easily be raising this flop with two pair and draws I have pretty crushed I push the flop for up to 300bb.

[Buzz]

darkcore - If you bet to put Shorty all-in, he will probably call. Right?

And if so, then you have less favorable odds. <ul type="square">Right now, Hero is you're getting almost two to one for his money (for the call). The pot size was $3.80 when Shorty shoved in $6.30, making the pot $10.10 and it will cost Hero $5.50 to call. Actually Hero is only getting 10.10/5.50 = 1.84 to 1 pot odds while the odds against making his hand are 1.88 to 1 (but Hero has implied pot odds, which more than make up the difference).

If this were a no-limit game and Shorty had been able to raise the rest of his stack ($8.80), then the pot size would be $12.60 and it would cost Hero $7.55 to call. In that case Hero would be getting 12.60/7.55 = 1.67 to 1 pot odds with no implied pot odds. With the odds against making his hand 1.88 to 1, Hero would not have favorable odds, if Villain truly has the set of kings his bet must represent.[/list]Can you see that by raising Shorty all-in, Hero is reducing his own pot odds from 1.84:1 to 1.67:1?

If Shorty was able to raise all-in to $8.80, then (with less favorable odds) Hero would simply have to guess as to whether Shorty was bluffing or not.

Assuming Shorty does have the set of kings, Hero is drawing to improve (mainly to a flush or trip aces, but also, to a much lesser extent to a full house/quads, or a straight). Any time you are drawing, you get the best odds by playing as cheaply as possible. That's a principle - like a law of nature - like the first law of thermodynamics (energy is conserved).

At any rate, it is absolutely incorrect for Hero to raise, but it is correct for Hero to call.

It's all about the odds to me. I play poker because, just like the casino, I can get the odds on my side. And somehow I get a kick out of doing that.

Buzz

[TheRempel]

Umm Buzz you are saying its correct for the hero to call because he's getting 1.84:1. This is not the correct price to see the turn if the villain can only have a set since OP is at best a 3.3:1 dog to the turn if the villain does indeed have a set. All just calling the flop does is make it look like you are getting the remainder of the villains stack in extremely favorably on the turn when in effect it's just putting good money in after bad.

If the villains range is only a set then OP should be folding to the flop raise. Of course this is purely academic since maybe 0.05% of players only ever raise the flop with a set against the PFR.

[RoundTower]

Buzz
you are not "priced in to call, but not to raise". Your pot odds are simply not favourable, if the guy has a set, to see only one more card which is all you get for the price of your call.

However if there is any chance the guy does not have a set, you have good pot odds to get it all in.

This is very basic stuff and should not need explaining to anyone who has played big bet poker.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
The stack sizes are extremely important.

[/ QUOTE ]The Rempel - I agree. [ QUOTE ]
Since the villain only has $4 left after his raise calling would be bad...

[/ QUOTE ]I strongly disagree. [ QUOTE ]
...since you would be committed to calling any turn bet regardless of what comes off

[/ QUOTE ]That's true. But it's not a reason to raise.[ QUOTE ]
Calling accomplishes absolutely nothing in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]I strongly disagree. Hero has favorable implied pot odds to call, but not favorable odds (if Villain has what his bet represents) to initiate fresh money into the pot.

If we just give Villain K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img],T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img],4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Villain is ahead by about 62 to 38. (Simulate it yourself, if you don't believe me).

If Villain only has top and bottom pair with crap, for example
K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img],5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img],6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], then Villain is ahead about 51 to 49. What is the point of betting where Villain will be more or less forced to call when you are behind?

And if Villain is somehow bluffing, a call here will do. There simply is not any reason to raise here, unless you think a raise will buy the pot from a better hand. (And I suppose anything is possible, but that seems unlikely to me.)

I'll concede that you know more about this game than I do. But this time, I think you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you can be dead certain that he is raising you with a set...

[/ QUOTE ]Obviously you're not dead certain of that.[ QUOTE ]
...you have to just stick it in.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that you have to call. I strongly disagree that you have to raise.[ QUOTE ]
The times you are a 7:3 dog will be more than made up for when the you have him in similar shape.

[/ QUOTE ]It may well be that Villain is betting without full value (the set of kings). And that is a good reason to call. But unless you're fairly certain your pair of aces with a nut flush draw is the best hand here, you simply don't have odds to raise.

Buzz