2/4 razz : bad hand, good odds

[Davdob]

Just to clarify, because of the check check on 6th, I think the fold on 7th is fine. You are playing a side pot with someone who has you beat WAY more often than the pot odds of that side pot would justify.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing on when pot odds are the single reason to do so is a good way to win money in limit games

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
First, this little trick of mis-quoting people and making it look like a quote is misleading for people who don't know what you are doing.

Second: bull[censored] In limit games, or any games, knowing how to get an extra bet or save one (or many)is long-term profit. Knowing when you are beat and when to get out is part of being adept.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Second: bull[censored] In limit games, or any games, knowing how to get an extra bet or save one (or many)is long-term profit. Knowing when you are beat and when to get out is part of being adept.

[/ QUOTE ]

prax, I say this in all seriousness and without any intent to flame:

learn about pot odds and what they mean before you post any more replies like in this thread.

in this hand, he's getting well over what he needs to continue with two all ins and a third guy who probably plays bad, and it's not close.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
First, this little trick of mis-quoting people and making it look like a quote is misleading for people who don't know what you are doing.

Second: bull[censored] In limit games, or any games, knowing how to get an extra bet or save one (or many)is long-term profit. Knowing when you are beat and when to get out is part of being adept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's try to keep this debate on a civil level. I mean this isn't BBV in here, tho if it were prax might be more familiar with the fake misquote. As far as the original point goes, you always always always have to pay attention to the size of the pot in limit games. If there is no pot at all, you'd never play from behind at all but once there is you can and often should play on to try to win that pot if you have the odds for it. Understanding this concept is one the keys (if not the primary key) to beating limit games.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
prax, I say this in all seriousness and without any intent to flame:

learn about pot odds and what they mean before you post any more replies like in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know all about pot odds and what they mean. What they don't mean is having great odds justifies stupid play.

As a matter of fact, the whole deal is pretty much based on fallacious assumptions. But that's a discussion for another thread.

You do well because of an incredible innate talent even you can't explain. You have folded when the pots odds said to call. You have called when you weren't sure why you did except using the "pot odds" excuse. After a few 100k hands, this OP can decide a lot of things if they develop half your ability. But allowing them to believe they played better than the opponents doesn't help them.

And I don't mean to get in your face, but I'll post anything I please. And I'll tell you why. Because this one "religion" of poker as so permeated all of the game in the US that the other side, the side that some exceptionally high stakes players support, never gets heard. No one has to know anything at all about pot odds to become very good at this game.

Fold when you have junk on 5th is one of the things you can know outside of pot odds.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's try to keep this debate on a civil level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's also try to not read negative tone of voice where there is none.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean this isn't BBV in here, tho if it were prax might be more familiar with the fake misquote.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm familiar, thanks. But everyone is not and I don't care for it. It's specious as well as precious and not conducive to dialogue civil or otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the original point goes, you always always always have to pay attention to the size of the pot in limit games. If there is no pot at all, you'd never play from behind at all but once there is you can and often should play on to try to win that pot if you have the odds for it. Understanding this concept is one the keys (if not the primary key) to beating limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with every bit of what you say here. I never said, and never would, to pay no attention to it - but it just ain't god, there are other factors to consider and the size of the pot is not, should not, be the overwhelming deciding factor.

[Davdob]

On 5th assuming that seat 1 has 2 cards under 6 and the other 2 villians have 2 cards under 7 to start, you have about a 13% chance of winning if you take it to the end. Purely on pot odds, this is a justifiable, but not at all mandatory, call on 5th.

The big mistake on this hand was the third street play.

[Sp00n]

I meant jamming 3rd sorry.

[appears]

Why I capped 3rd:
I stated in the OP "No one in this pot had any idea how to play." Specifically, my notes for one player state:
"bad player
raised 97/A UTG
called 3rd st. raise w 3T/5
limps in EP w K2/6"
He wasn't even the worst player in the pot. I can assure you beyond a shadow of doubt that I was not up against two bicycle hands here. (Maybe one, but not two.) Furthermore, the out cards were: A228, which was obviously pretty good for me.

I realized that capping 3rd st. would greatly increase my variance. However, I felt I wasn't a 3-1 dog here, and I knew that with every bet that went into the pot, I was getting 3-1 on my money. But having read the responses and done some number crunching on twodimes, it's unlikely that I will cap in that spot in the future. There isn't really a realistic scenario where I'm all that far ahead, so in any event, I'm not giving up much.

The result:

Total pot $55.25 Main pot $47. Side pot-1 $3.75. Side pot-2 $2.50. | Rake $2
Seat 1: folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 2: showed [3s 7s Ah Th 5s Td As] and won ($2.50) with Lo: T,7,5,3,A
Seat 3: mucked [4d 7c 2d Ks 5h Jc 7h]
Seat 4: showed [7d Ad 8s Qd Ts 9s 6d] and won ($50.75) with Lo: 9,8,7,6,A
Seat 5: folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 6: folded on the 3rd Street
Seat 7: folded on the River
Seat 8: folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)

So as it was, I had 28.6% equity on 3rd st. Did I get lucky? Maybe. But not lucky enough to win the pot.

I did find find this 5th st. equity calculation, which Davdob alluded to, which indicates that I am slightly worse than a 7-1 dog against a reasonable range. So getting 12-1 here is plenty. Nevertheless, if I bricked 6th and my opponent caught good, I definitely would have folded to a bet, because great pot odds don’t do anything for you if you’re drawing dead.

I think the key here is that two players were all-in on 5th st. Facing the prospect of multiple bets and raises on not just 5th, but 6th and 7th as well – that would make 5th st. an easy fold.

[Davdob]

I actually think the fact that your opponents suck is a reason not to reraise on third street. Bad players will play along on fourth with crap odds even when they brick. Alot of reraising on third actually makes this frequent mistake correct.

You are right though, the out cards do make your hand appreciably stronger, making it a bit more tempting to jam third there, but I still would rather deny good odds to idiots.