Saving Bets

First post. Hopefully I can get the formatting down.

<font color="red">Hero</font> (70.5)
<font color="green">Villian-1</font> (30)
<font color="blue">Villian-2</font> (119.30)

The table is pretty loose. I just stacked someone after re-raising PF with AAds two hands prior to the hand in question. Lately, I have been experimenting with short-stacked buy-ins and TAG play, though I'm pretty sure my table image at this point was LAG.

My question involves the following hand at $50-PLO table.

Hero is MP+1 with: A/images/graemlins/club.gif A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

MP limps (.50), <font color="red">Hero</font> limps (.50), CO limps (.50), B <font color="green">Villian-1</font> limps (.50), SB <font color="blue">Villian-2</font> checks, BB checks.

Flop: A/images/graemlins/heart.gif J/images/graemlins/club.gif Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif

<font color="blue">Villian-2</font> bets (1), MP folds, MP+1 calls (1), <font color="red">Hero</font> calls (1), CO calls (1), <font color="green">Villian-1</font> raises (4), <font color="blue">Villian-2</font> raises (6), MP+1 folds, <font color="red">Hero</font> folds, CO folds, <font color="green">Villian-1</font> raises (23), <font color="blue">Villian-2</font> calls (20).

Turn: A/images/graemlins/heart.gif J/images/graemlins/club.gif Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

<font color="blue">Villian-2</font> checks, <font color="green">Villian-1</font> bets (2.5 AI), <font color="blue">Villian-2</font> calls (2.5)

River: A/images/graemlins/heart.gif J/images/graemlins/club.gif Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif

<font color="green">Villian-1</font> shows: K/images/graemlins/heart.gif 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif 10/images/graemlins/diamond.gif
<font color="blue">Villian-2</font> shows: 5/images/graemlins/club.gif Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 10/images/graemlins/heart.gif

<font color="green">Villian-1</font> wins 32, <font color="blue">Villian-2</font> wins 32.


That each of the villians had K-10 was not surprising from the flop action. The fact that I would have won the hand doesn't bother me, as I am sure that I made the correct fold. My question is whether or not I should have called the initial weak bet (1). Given the flop, I was working under the assumption that Villian 2 had K-10 with likely back door flush outs. So, I called the weak bet figuring that I was getting the correct odds to look for a board pair on the turn. Obviously, once there was a raise and a re-raise it became an auto-fold.

Should I have called the initial weak flop bet OOP, or should this have been an autofold at that point already?

[Acesover8s]

Against two opponents, I'm pretty happy to get my stack in with top set even if I need to hit. If you have backdoor flush or (chopping) straight draws, so much the better.

Spots like this are not about knowing you have the worst hand so you fold, its about taking a gamble where you are getting a good equity return from your hand.

[liquid]

Your Qd makes this a marginal push.

Change it to Qc or any non-pairing card and you have good equity to push.

Change it to Kc or Tc and you have an easy push.

I can understand the case for pushing here with backdoor flush and/or chopped straight draws to go along with top set. My thinking on this particular hand, was that I was up against a made straight with no flush or chop redraws and a hole Q that had just eaten up one of my boat outs and that living to fight another day was the better option.

There is a big EV difference between being on the 30 end of a 70/30 and the 40 end of a 60/40.

In these situations, I also feel that I have to factor in the relative strength of my opponent. Against a better player, taking a bit more risk in a situation like this makes sense, as it is generally much more difficult to extract chips/dollars. Against a poor player, waiting for a slightly better odds (i.e. 40% vs. 30%) just makes more sense to me.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand the case for pushing here with backdoor flush and/or chopped straight draws to go along with top set. My thinking on this particular hand, was that I was up against a made straight with no flush or chop redraws and a hole Q that had just eaten up one of my boat outs and that living to fight another day was the better option.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its a math problem, and almost always in a 3 way confrontation you will have the equity to proceed.

Plus it gives you the metagame image of looking like a gambler, or someone who's incapable of folding a set when you're OBVIOUSLY behind.

[ QUOTE ]
In these situations, I also feel that I have to factor in the relative strength of my opponent. Against a better player, taking a bit more risk in a situation like this makes sense, as it is generally much more difficult to extract chips/dollars. Against a poor player, waiting for a slightly better odds (i.e. 40% vs. 30%) just makes more sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a cash game hand right? If you're properly bankrolled you should take every edge possible. There's no reason to pass on a .05% edge here because there's a 30% edge later if you can just reload in between.

Its occasionally correct to take mild -ev gambles in capped buyin games in order to get your stack in shape to battle with the big stacks who are playing loose/bad.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand the case for pushing here with backdoor flush and/or chopped straight draws to go along with top set. My thinking on this particular hand, was that I was up against a made straight with no flush or chop redraws and a hole Q that had just eaten up one of my boat outs and that living to fight another day was the better option.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its a math problem, and almost always in a 3 way confrontation you will have the equity to proceed.

Plus it gives you the metagame image of looking like a gambler, or someone who's incapable of folding a set when you're OBVIOUSLY behind.

[ QUOTE ]
In these situations, I also feel that I have to factor in the relative strength of my opponent. Against a better player, taking a bit more risk in a situation like this makes sense, as it is generally much more difficult to extract chips/dollars. Against a poor player, waiting for a slightly better odds (i.e. 40% vs. 30%) just makes more sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a cash game hand right? If you're properly bankrolled you should take every edge possible. There's no reason to pass on a .05% edge here because there's a 30% edge later if you can just reload in between.

Its occasionally correct to take mild -ev gambles in capped buyin games in order to get your stack in shape to battle with the big stacks who are playing loose/bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. It's not a tourney.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a math problem, and almost always in a 3 way confrontation you will have the equity to proceed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just want to point out that because of the stack sizes, Hero only has 2 to 1 on his first $30 and 1 to 1 on his last $40. So he's looking at a $170 pot that will cost him $70 to see. That's 1.4 to 1. The dead money isn't big enough to change these numbers significantly.

Is there something wrong with this analysis?

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a cash game hand right? If you're properly bankrolled you should take every edge possible. There's no reason to pass on a .05% edge here because there's a 30% edge later if you can just reload in between.

Its occasionally correct to take mild -ev gambles in capped buyin games in order to get your stack in shape to battle with the big stacks who are playing loose/bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of the short stack (V1 = $30), this becomes worse than what I would call mild -ev. He'll have contributed 41% to the pot holding 32% equity. Even with the fringe benefits ... metagame, stack size ... this has to be a fold.

So, the decision by OP was correct (and showed discipline beyond what I've ever seen at $50 PLO table, and beyond what I might personally have shown) based on the mathematics.

However, the "wait for a better edge" theory isn't part of the decision in this case. As is noted above, in a cash game, properly funded, you push every small edge you can.