PLO 200 Flopped top set, straight on board, what to do???

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Second point, while you gain $119 when UTG and button fold, if that is 1-in-3 times – that maybe generous – then there are several other scenarios that are poor for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
1-in-3 is enough even if button has a flush draw and a gut-shot everytime he doesn't have KT.

[ QUOTE ]
Bad case – as here – you are up against flush draw plus nut straight, 28.6 % dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't see how you can come up with a scenario where you're a 28.6% dog, unless you're deliberately adding perfect sidecards into both villain's hands. Even then, in a 3-way, you only need 0.307 equity to justify the push.

[ QUOTE ]
Much worse: UTG has QQ, + a gutshout with a J, button has nut straight and flush draw – you are a 16.1% dog. Probably the worst case scenario – although if button has a pair as well it’s even worse. Clearly, this will not happen very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, try this exercize: calculate your EV in this case if UTG calls, and if UTG folds. Which one gives you more money in the long run?

The answer is if UTG calls.

[Silent A]

I tried to make an earlier post, but I guess I didn't actually submit it, so here I go again.

All this talk about me supposedly saying that nothing UTG calls with reduces your equity. I did not say that!

I said, nothing he calls with reduces your EV. I admit I missed one scenario where it does: if UTG has KT and button is so week that he can't call getting 4 to 1 odds with 2 to come.

However, with that one exception (which I think is relatively rare) there is no other scenario under which you make more (or lose less) money, in the long run, when UTG calls rather than folds.

In other words, UTG calling is virtually always +EV for you.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Silent A recommends a fold against a random player but that there is no case for calling - i.e a push is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to emphasize an important point: I said "random unknown" not a "random player". There is a big difference. And that's with the caveat that this is based on how many people play at levels below PLO 200.

Based on my relatively limited PLO 200 experience, far more players pot here without KT, but I haven't played enough hands there to form a strong opinion if they pot without the nuts often enough.

The more I think about it, however, the more I think that the answer is "yes, they do pot without KT often enough to justify a push by Hero".

Oh, and Roundtower's 90% figure is, I think, way too high. I'm pretty certain that against 2 random hands, one will have KT about 10% of the time. The odds of this go way up in a raised pot with action on a KT friendly flop.

But that doesn't matter too much since you only have to be ahead 1/3 of the time to justify a push.

[Silent A]

Last post on this for now ...

A brief explanation on why 1/3 is enough to justify a push:

1) assume that button has KT 2/3 of them time and that you will win 1/3 of the time in these cases.

2) assume button has a reasonable drawing hand 1/3 of the time and you will win 2/3 of the time in these cases.

So 1/3 of the time you have 2/3 equity, and 2/3 of the time you have 1/3 equity.

Your overall equity is (1/3)(2/3) + (2/3)(1/3) = 4/9 = 0.444 > 0.43 (the equity you need to attain 0 EV).

And note, this totally ignores cases where button has a hand like QQ or air and so it's actually a fairly conservative estimate.

[youdidwhat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Second point, while you gain $119 when UTG and button fold, if that is 1-in-3 times – that maybe generous – then there are several other scenarios that are poor for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

1-in-3 is enough even if button has a flush draw and a gut-shot everytime he doesn't have KT.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - I just meant if the ratio was 1-in-4 but I accept that is likely too high in this instance.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bad case – as here – you are up against flush draw plus nut straight, 28.6 % dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't see how you can come up with a scenario where you're a 28.6% dog, unless you're deliberately adding perfect sidecards into both villain's hands. Even then, in a 3-way, you only need 0.307 equity to justify the push.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just the equity in the actual hand in question and where UTG folds:-

pokenum -o th jc ks 9h - ac as js 3s -- ah jh qd
Omaha Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing Qd Ah Jh
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ks Jc Th 9h 578 70.49 236 28.78 6 0.73 0.709
As Js 3s Ac 236 28.78 578 70.49 6 0.73 0.291
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Much worse: UTG has QQ, + a gutshout with a J, button has nut straight and flush draw – you are a 16.1% dog. Probably the worst case scenario – although if button has a pair as well it’s even worse. Clearly, this will not happen very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, try this exercize: calculate your EV in this case if UTG calls, and if UTG folds. Which one gives you more money in the long run?

The answer is if UTG calls.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes - I just wanted to show that there is a scenario where your equity is much lower by dint of having outs removed. But I agree with what you say - you want UTG to call.

[shpongled]

There is no way you are ahead 90% of the time here. But you are definitely ahead at least 50% of the time so I think you should lead out. Maybe UTG calls and you get more money in the pot - when you checkraise, you shut them out. As played I would check-fold if I didn't know anything about the button. But it's a borderline decision, so the checkraise isn't a big mistake.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't see how you can come up with a scenario where you're a 28.6% dog, unless you're deliberately adding perfect sidecards into both villain's hands. Even then, in a 3-way, you only need 0.307 equity to justify the push.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just the equity in the actual hand in question and where UTG folds:-

pokenum -o th jc ks 9h - ac as js 3s -- ah jh qd
Omaha Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing Qd Ah Jh
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ks Jc Th 9h 578 70.49 236 28.78 6 0.73 0.709
As Js 3s Ac 236 28.78 578 70.49 6 0.73 0.291

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I never noticed the OP had the actual hands in white, so I didn't know button really had the KT here, let alone one of your outs too.

[MadScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't see how you can come up with a scenario where you're a 28.6% dog, unless you're deliberately adding perfect sidecards into both villain's hands. Even then, in a 3-way, you only need 0.307 equity to justify the push.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just the equity in the actual hand in question and where UTG folds:-

pokenum -o th jc ks 9h - ac as js 3s -- ah jh qd
Omaha Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing Qd Ah Jh
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ks Jc Th 9h 578 70.49 236 28.78 6 0.73 0.709
As Js 3s Ac 236 28.78 578 70.49 6 0.73 0.291

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I never noticed the OP had the actual hands in white, so I didn't know button really had the KT here, let alone one of your outs too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably should have left out the results as I am more concerned with how good of a decision the c/r is.
By the way, if you look at villain's hand, it justifies my read that he is raising with a wide range here.
Also, he is going to represent top set here when an A flops very often. In this case, there is the straight out there, so he is repping that too.

My thoughts at the time were that he could not know I had top set because I didn't reraise. I probably have the best hand as it is three handed. If it was seven handed and unraised, I could find a fold since one of my outs is dead. If I lead out, I will just get better hands to put me all in and get all worse hands a chance to get out (though there is some chance that QQ is coming along regardless). Since leading out is not right, I checked. When it came back to me, the chance he does not have the straight is too great for me too fold. I thought that more than 50 percent of the time we would be bluffing or semi-bluffing. Folding is not right, so what about calling? I really don't have the outs to call and if he bets all the way with a weaker hand and I don't improve, I could get to the river and fold the best hand. Calling gives money away when he has the straight and when he is willing to bluff all the way to the river, so calling is not right. Since calling and folding are not right, raising should be the right play, after all I will have the best hand here often, the pot is already big relative to my stack, and weaker sets and flush draws will call down some of the time.
I pushed and you can see the results in white above. However, I think that I played it right.
If villain would only be betting with the nuts rarely, one out of five times, then a fold would be correct.