What % of the time are we beat here?

[mugatu668]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (6 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver Cards)

BB ($3.83)
UTG ($4.83)
MP ($2.07)
CO ($2.55)
Hero ($2.84)
SB ($0.98)

Preflop: Hero is Button with , .
UTG calls $0.02, MP calls $0.02, CO calls $0.02, Hero raises to $0.12</font>, 2 folds</font>, UTG calls $0.10, MP calls $0.10, CO folds.

Flop: ($0.41) , , [color=#0000FF](3 players)</font>
UTG checks, MP checks, Hero bets $0.31</font>, UTG calls $0.31, MP folds.

Turn: ($1.03) (2 players)</font>
UTG checks, Hero bets $0.66</font>, UTG calls $0.66.

River: ($2.35) (2 players)</font>
Villain bets $.55

Let's go over the hand:
PF call: Shows a marginal hand that probably hopes to improve. All pp's, suited aces, suited connectors, possibly connectors
Flop call: After the strength shown PF he is definitely going to be raising two pair, the calling either shows that he has a weak king, a jack, or is drawing.
Turn call Most villains here now toss their PP's + jacks, and almost all of them will raise a king. This leaves us with draws.
River bet Clearly a valuebet. Villain knows we are not folding but is also afraid we might check behind because of the scary river. River card completes almost all draws.

My answer: I think at these stakes, hero is beat somewhere between 90 and 100% of the time.

Question: It seems to me like, with these odds, folding is out of the question. But, my question is, can an argument be made for folding here?

[mugatu668]

BTW, I am hoping this will generate some discussion on how much those "gut feelings" should be incorporated into play. I'm not saying every hand, but there are definitely hands that we've all had where we KNOW we're beat, or we KNOW they're bluffing. Is it possible that sometimes we should let our gut reactions overrun all the math and "common sense" we have learned in poker?

[slush420]

we're not beat here enough to fold this hand. this is a simple call IMO even if just for info. and no you're not beat here 90% of the time. maybe 50-60%

[Profish2285]

Bet more on turn, like .85 and river is a call. I dont think hes going to call a shove with a lone jack or queen. We are getting almost 6:1 so there is no folding here. Whether you "know" he isnt bluffing or not means nothing really. He could be value betting K9/KT often enough to dictate calling. He could think QJ is good now, who knows, but the odds are too good. I have made my fair share of crying calls getting amazing odds, thinking there is no way I am good but have to call because of the math. Guess what happens, villain shows some hand that you would have never thought he would do that with and you just collected a pot where you wouldve folded if you trusted your gut over the math.

[mugatu668]

[ QUOTE ]
we're not beat here enough to fold to a 2/3rds pot sized bet or less. vs a shove this is definitely a fold. I can't see what villain did on river FWIW but if he checks I can definitely see cking behind as I am sure his trip kings would play back at you on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
Villain bets $.55 on river

[mugatu668]

[ QUOTE ]
Bet more on turn, like .85 and river is a call. I dont think hes going to call a shove with a lone jack or queen. We are getting almost 6:1 so there is no folding here. Whether you "know" he isnt bluffing or not means nothing really. He could be value betting K9/KT often enough to dictate calling. He could think QJ is good now, who knows, but the odds are too good.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience, even at 2NL, almost all villains are cautious with trips on this board.

I knew that the advice from everyone would be that this is an obvious call.

That is why I changed the question, to "How often are we good?"

[Profish2285]

Thats a question that cant be answered. How can you quantify how often we are good? When people say "Im probably good here 20% of the time," its a pure guess based on villains range. The general answer is that we are good often enough. Its a general assumption getting those odds because its pretty hard to imagine that we wont be good often enough to show a profit.

[mugatu668]

One thing that has occured to me is that this could easily be a blocking bet from a weak king.

I thought this question was "deep", I guess, and that it would generate good theory discussion about "knowing you're beat" vs "pot odds", but it appears that this was a stupid question.

From it, though, we have learned that in this situation, with the odds we are getting, there will always be a way to justify that a call is +EV, which is still a good lesson.

TY Profish, your responses got me thinking!

[Profish2285]

Its not a stupid question but you just saw what I was trying to say. A blocker bet is definitely possible and it doesnt even have to be a blocker bet from just a king. For some reason villain could think you had a jack and he just sucked out on you and wants value. If he pots the river its safe to assume we are SOL and its time to go away. But with the odds hes offering he could be value betting worse fairly often.

[mugatu668]

Can we both agree that sometimes, with the dynamics of the hand, and the exact timing inbetween calls and bets from villains, that you can sometimes be almost 100% sure that you are beat, however? This hand was such an example. The HH could never show it, but after he called my turn bet I was certain he was drawing.