Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how effective odds come into play here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since I disagree with Nate, I can only assume that I am somehow wrong. But...
I thought in this situation, you would use effective odds on a call down. Assuming villian bets again on the river 100% of the time (cleary not the case), our odds on a call down are:
(4.66 + 2) : 1
= 3.3:1.
What aren't I seeing?
Note: This still brings us to the same conclusion as Nate (who estimated we're good 35% of the time), just that it used effective odds to justify it.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you think you're good 35% of the time here, then calling down is clearly correct given 3.3:1 odds (though slightly smaller after the rake steals some more).
Other things to consider here. You're drawing dead vs. an 8 OR a 9. If villian also has an A you're choping unless you hit something. All of your outs are good against any villian hand not containing an 8 or 9 (except AA or KK). Your hand is already good against any hand not mentioned above (except TT, JJ, or QQ).
This would be a much easier decision if you had some sort of read (obviously). Assuming he is an unsophisticated player, his checkraise either indicates that he has a fairly big hand or a hand like AJ. I doubt he'd checkraise semi-bluff with a hand like JT here.
Calling down is probably correct.
|