Can I fold here?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
The hand history show "Omaha". It doesn't say it's hi/lo.

[ QUOTE ]
Full Tilt Poker
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $25/$50
8 players

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah it's just how the convertor is, can we please stop with this now.

[zizazziza]

call
i mean lets look @ this hand. So he knows that you are tight and you didnt raise PF and he limped UTG.
So he made a psb into this hand w/ only 1 low card. So lets look @ what his hand possibilities are here. You have the As so you can bet that if he does have a FD he has a SD to go with it.
Do you know his hand range for limping PF in PLO8? I doubt that if he is a good player that he is limping 99xx or 88xx. Unless they have an A2 tied with them.
So then we have you raising (which I do not like btw. If you are not going to raise this PF then raising the flop states what ur hand is and there are too many cards that come on the turn that he can just shove with). So the 5 comes on the turn, so this means that if he doesnt have a lower set it is unlikely that he called with something like JT76ss from UTG. So when he shoves it looks like he either has a the same flush and straight draw he had before or he had one of those unlikely A288 or A299 hands where he picked up a backdoor nut low draw where he thinks he can be good with a 3467 on the river.
Therefore, I think that you need to make this call b/c there are too many times that you are ahead.
I think the only logical hand that you would be "really" worried about is A288 with 28ss

[PorkPieHat]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe spades or a low draw to go with it now, but that's irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant? If he has lower set plus spades and a low draw our equity in the hand is what, like 60%? If we figured that he has the nut str8 here half the time and low draw plus spade flush draw here the other half, it would be -EV to call... whereas if we just give him the lower set half the time then calling makes sense.

Anyway, I think I fold. Problem being that much of the time your opponent will have some sort of low draw, so that half of the time you catch him semibluffing he gets away with half the pot anyway. And I think he often will have the straight here, despite the seeming improbability of 67xx hands based on the action so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's irrelevant because even if he did have spades and a low draw we'd have odds to call (getting 2:1).

Vs middle set with low draw only:
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2584365
pokenum -o8 as kc kd 5h - ad 2s 9d 9c -- 9h 8s ks 5c
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 40 enumerated boards containing Ks 8s 5c 9h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
As Kc Kd 5h 23 39 1 0 0 0 0 0.775
2s 9c Ad 9d 1 1 39 0 16 0 0 0.225

vs middle set with low and flush draw:
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2584367
pokenum -o8 as kc kd 5h - ad 2s 9s 9c -- 9h 8s ks 5c
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 40 enumerated boards containing Ks 8s 5c 9h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
As Kc Kd 5h 20 32 8 0 0 0 0 0.650
9s 2s 9c Ad 8 8 32 0 16 0 0 0.350

Oh gee, look at that, we are HUGE favorites. And we are getting 2:1. We will need an IRA to protect all those Sklansky bucks from getting taxed by the govmint.

Here is our absolute worst fear - A267:
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2584369
pokenum -o8 as kc kd 5h - ad 2s 6s 7c -- 9h 8s ks 5c
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 40 enumerated boards containing Ks 8s 5c 9h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
As Kc Kd 5h 9 9 31 0 0 0 0 0.225
6s 2s 7c Ad 31 31 9 0 19 0 0 0.775

We are only 10% away from having the odds to call this one. Do you realize how rarely we need to be up against one of the first 2 hands to make this an insta-call?

[ QUOTE ]
Problem being that much of the time your opponent will have some sort of low draw, so that half of the time you catch him semibluffing he gets away with half the pot anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is zero logic behind this statement. Play Limit if you are going to play this weak.

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I didn't have the Ace of spades, I insta-call. Anyone argue with this logic?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because you hold the ace of spades, it makes me think it's even less likely he lead the flop and called a raise with a 76xx type hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me why. I don't understand. You can take villain off the nut flush draw, but that makes his bet even more puzzling to me.

By your logic, in order to call OP has to put villian on something like 2 pair or middle set (putting OP way ahead regardless of whether villain is also drawing to an A2), villain has to have put OP on 1 or 2 draws (and not the str8), and villain is re-potting to try to make OP lay down his draws. Or, he's a complete donk maniac on a bluff and he thinks he can get OP (tight image) to lay down anything less than the absolutes.

And only a complete action monkey would play 4 middle cards in O8. JT76 or any other 76xx middle connectors can be ruled out. (Right?)

Could he have AA76ds?

I liked the logic behind not laying down out of fear of one hand only, the A276. I've been reading Mathematics of Poker & digesting the concept of putting your opponent on a distribution of hands instead of one specifically. This is a perfect example, I think, of being able to call the likely distribution of villain's hands.

I don't play on this level, so I'm asking in a naive effort to improve myself. This feels like a call to me but its a great question with several high-end answers. Thanks for validating my time in the forum.

[Truthiness24]

Aren't AA67 or AATJ with spades both the kind of hands that could lead this flop UTG? They also seem like limping hands. The AA67 in particular seems like a limping hand on which villain was waiting for someone in LP to pot so that he could repot.

Those make it an easy call IMO. But hey, I'm poor, so what do I know?

[bbartlog]

There is zero logic behind this statement. Play Limit if you are going to play this weak.

Of course it's possible I'm wrong/weak here. But zero logic, no. Since you're basically calculating the sum of all possible ((chance of opponent holding hand X) * (your equity against this hand)) and seeing whether this is more or less than the threshold you need to call, it does make a difference how far ahead you are when your opponent is behind. And if your opponent has any low draw (or flush draw) it reduces your pot equity in situations when you're ahead.
As for the 'absolute worst fear' hand (A267 suited in spades), you glossed over the fact that any 67xx hand has the same or better equity against us - the nut low draw and spade flush draw are irrelevant when opponent is already ahead of us, since any card that helps us will not help his low or flush anyway. Actually 6788/6799 is our worst fear, but I'll grant that it's vanishingly unlikely.
My reasoning is that if opponent had a lower set, he would probably have 3-bet the flop. Opponent is unlikely to be betting a flush draw alone this hard, since he can't have the nut flush draw - but it's quite possible that he is suited in spades anyway.
AA67, A367, and A267 all seem possible to me. Personally I figure something like 85% opponent has 67xx and 15% he has some holding that you're a 70% favorite (on average) against. (0.85 * 0.225 + 0.15 * 0.7) ~ 0.296, which makes this a fold in my book (and notice that if opponent really had no redraws 15% of the time, it would make a difference). But you do have a point: you only need to bump up the chance of him holding something other than the nut straight to 25% or so in order for this to be a call. I just think lower sets are both likely to 3-bet on the flop, and less likely in general than 67xx. And other holdings don't make a lot of sense based on how the hand played out.

[PorkPieHat]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I figure something like 85% opponent has 67xx

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the 'weak' part I was talking about. Based on what we've seen so far you can't seriously put him on 67xx that often. Can he have it here? Sure, he could have anything. Problem is, you are not putting him on a valid range of hands.

The weak part was mainly referring to your brush off regarding how he could be semibluffing and still suck out a low. Let him do that all day long, if he has a 50% shot to win 50% of the pot.

[niss]

If you're not willing to go broke here with this hand, then you are playing too high.

[I dunno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I didn't have the Ace of spades, I insta-call. Anyone argue with this logic?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because you hold the ace of spades, it makes me think it's even less likely he lead the flop and called a raise with a 76xx type hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me why. I don't understand. You can take villain off the nut flush draw, but that makes his bet even more puzzling to me.

By your logic, in order to call OP has to put villian on something like 2 pair or middle set (putting OP way ahead regardless of whether villain is also drawing to an A2), villain has to have put OP on 1 or 2 draws (and not the str8), and villain is re-potting to try to make OP lay down his draws. Or, he's a complete donk maniac on a bluff and he thinks he can get OP (tight image) to lay down anything less than the absolutes.

And only a complete action monkey would play 4 middle cards in O8. JT76 or any other 76xx middle connectors can be ruled out. (Right?)

Could he have AA76ds?

I liked the logic behind not laying down out of fear of one hand only, the A276. I've been reading Mathematics of Poker & digesting the concept of putting your opponent on a distribution of hands instead of one specifically. This is a perfect example, I think, of being able to call the likely distribution of villain's hands.

I don't play on this level, so I'm asking in a naive effort to improve myself. This feels like a call to me but its a great question with several high-end answers. Thanks for validating my time in the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's going to lead the flop and call a huge raise, he needs more than three nut outs to make that call. He can't have the NFD, so I can't think of any reasonable hand he would semibluff the flop then call a potsized raise with, in a heads-up pot, OOP, that contains 76.

[You're No Daisy]

Hi Shabamabam,

First, I want to know what you think villain thinks you have. You've been playing tight and he knows this. Maybe he thinks you're playing A2xx and he has something like A288 or A299 giving him bottom or middle set and thinks you're peddling for the low...not sure. BUT...Let's think in terms of what you have. You've got top set with 3 out of the 13 spades accounted for (one in your hand, two on the board). The 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and case 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are outs for you, so if villain has played something like KQJT with the Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] he is drawing to the 3rd best flush and has 6 outs (he doesn't know you have the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]). But he also has an OESD with only 7 outs if he has a Queen in his hand. Currently you're ahead here and you can't back down now. I don't know how tight, straight-forward, or tricky villain is, but KQJT would be your biggest worry since it gives him 13 outs.

OTOH, I really believe your only worry should be about villain holding A23x or A2xx and rivering a low card that doesn't counterfeit him, giving him low and splitting the pot. This would be a pretty easy call for me. Without reads on villain, it's hard to say though. That's why I asked earlier, what you think villain thinks you have. If he has bottom or middle set, a shot at low and thinks you're peddling for the low, I can see why he put his entire stack all-in on the turn. He probably thinks his set is good enough to scoop (his best case scenario) and if he rivers a low card he'll quarter you (still a good scenario for him).

Everyone...let me know your thoughts.