I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

I hate to take up forum space with a question I am [almost] certain is a no-brainer, but . . .

10-handed 3/6 online - weak field but nobody is giving away chips

*

UTG, #'s 2 and 4 limp

I'm in # 6 and call with pocket threes.

#7 (a late post) raises, the button 3-bets, both blinds and all three limpers call . . .

Is there one person out there who can make a lucid case for folding here ?

- I have played with the late poster before; it was a foregone conclusion that he would cap when it came back to him; does that make it any easier to come up with a case for tossing the deuces into the muck ?

*

The remainder of the hand is also quite interesting but I must know if there is anyone who routinely mucks small pairs in situations such as these. I could flop my set and lose - and if I do it's apt to be extremely expensive - but still . . .

Anyone ?

*

Thanks in advance to those who chose to chime in.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

I think it is an easy fold.
You are only invested for $3 and it is extremely unlikely that you can win the hand. Think of it this way; It is very likely that a couple of the players have better PPs and even if the are all complete morons you know that the others have suited cards and if the game is loose no one is folding until the river. So you can call miss your 3 and fold (losing an additional $9) or hit your 3 and lose a big pot.


IMO

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to take up forum space with a question I am [almost] certain is a no-brainer, but . . .

10-handed 3/6 online - weak field but nobody is giving away chips

*

UTG, #'s 2 and 4 limp

I'm in # 6 and call with pocket threes.

#7 (a late post) raises, the button 3-bets, both blinds and all three limpers call . . .

Is there one person out there who can make a lucid case for folding here ?

- I have played with the late poster before; it was a foregone conclusion that he would cap when it came back to him; does that make it any easier to come up with a case for tossing the deuces into the muck ?

*

The remainder of the hand is also quite interesting but I must know if there is anyone who routinely mucks small pairs in situations such as these. I could flop my set and lose - and if I do it's apt to be extremely expensive - but still . . .

Anyone ?

*

Thanks in advance to those who chose to chime in.

[/ QUOTE ]

With 8 people in, I am definitely calling. I would think about capping it myself and then just call.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there one person out there who can make a lucid case for folding here ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but they would be wrong.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

just calculate your immediate pot odds.. then think about the fact that you are actually gonna get MORE than that because some people are gonna come along also, you'll see that you have plenty of odds to play, and folding would be like setting fire to money.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

you're getting almost 8-1 pot odds on a draw that comes in 7.5 to 1 (the odds of you flopping a set of 3's which are your best chance to win) -

7 callers? - jeez...I see a flop but don't get married to it -

RB

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]


UTG, #'s 2 and 4 limp

I'm in # 6 and call with pocket threes.

#7 (a late post) raises, the button 3-bets, both blinds and all three limpers call . . .

Is there one person out there who can make a lucid case for folding here ?



[/ QUOTE ]

Only if one of the remaining threes was exposed by the time the action came back to me.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an easy fold.
You are only invested for $3 and it is extremely unlikely that you can win the hand. Think of it this way; It is very likely that a couple of the players have better PPs and even if the are all complete morons you know that the others have suited cards and if the game is loose no one is folding until the river. So you can call miss your 3 and fold (losing an additional $9) or hit your 3 and lose a big pot.


IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not follow this advice.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an easy fold.
You are only invested for $3 and it is extremely unlikely that you can win the hand. Think of it this way; It is very likely that a couple of the players have better PPs and even if the are all complete morons you know that the others have suited cards and if the game is loose no one is folding until the river. So you can call miss your 3 and fold (losing an additional $9) or hit your 3 and lose a big pot.


IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

weak

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an easy fold.
You are only invested for $3 and it is extremely unlikely that you can win the hand. Think of it this way; It is very likely that a couple of the players have better PPs and even if the are all complete morons you know that the others have suited cards and if the game is loose no one is folding until the river. So you can call miss your 3 and fold (losing an additional $9) or hit your 3 and lose a big pot.


IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not follow this advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see this played out in a hand simulator. I think the parameters should be that 2 other players have a bigger PP and 3 players have suited connectors and the rest can have random cards.
Or as a second sample maybe just give the rest of them random cards.

The key here is that even though you are getting the right pot odds to call for trips. I don't think trips wins it and I don't see getting the right odds for quads. The game is loose and with that much money in the pot I don’t see many players laying down their hand if the catch even a little piece of it on the flop,turn or river.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is there one person out there who can make a lucid case for folding here ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably amulet.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an easy fold.
You are only invested for $3 and it is extremely unlikely that you can win the hand. Think of it this way; It is very likely that a couple of the players have better PPs and even if the are all complete morons you know that the others have suited cards and if the game is loose no one is folding until the river. So you can call miss your 3 and fold (losing an additional $9) or hit your 3 and lose a big pot.


IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not follow this advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see this played out in a hand simulator. I think the parameters should be that 2 other players have a bigger PP and 3 players have suited connectors and the rest can have random cards.
Or as a second sample maybe just give the rest of them random cards.

The key here is that even though you are getting the right pot odds to call for trips. I don't think trips wins it and I don't see getting the right odds for quads. The game is loose and with that much money in the pot I don’t see many players laying down their hand if the catch even a little piece of it on the flop,turn or river.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can make two different straight flushes.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[/ QUOTE ]and I don't see getting the right odds for quads.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

When it gets back to you, there are 21 bets in the pot, and it costs you 3 more (based on your analysis) to play. You easily get odds to flop your set. Yes, you will not always win when you do, but the overlay for you to call is there, as the pot will be huge when you take it down. If this was me, I would cap it and represent AA-KK. Since you will be calling a cap anyways, you might as well do it yourself.

EDIT: because everyone will be calling your cap, your odds for this street are 10.67:1. Ridiculous.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

I think it is very rare to have all these callers to a raise and a re-raise. You would "routinely" see one or no callers facing 2 bets and likely three. With all those callers, you have to assume there is one or two bigger pocket pairs out there. That reduces your pot odds tremendously.

The "lucid argument for folding" is that you'll miss the flop and fold 88% of the time and lose a big pot to Straights, Flushes and bigger Sets 25% of the time you hit your set. This only leaves you with about 9% to work with to justify calling two more bets.

If you go to the odds calculator at Cardplayer.com you can put in five players (max) and if you put in your 33 against an AK, QQ, JTs and 67s, you would find that you are only 16% to win. It's worse if there is another pair out there (14%). The only time you are the favorite is when they all hold each other's cards - hey, it happens!

I think there are other hands that can give you a much better expected value. Of course, many poker players are action junkies and find a lot of value in the thrill of trying to buck the odds and win a big pot. These, obviously, are the players you want at your table.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you go to the odds calculator at Cardplayer.com you can put in five players (max) and if you put in your 33 against an AK, QQ, JTs and 67s, you would find that you are only 16% to win. It's worse if there is another pair out there (14%). The only time you are the favorite is when they all hold each other's cards - hey, it happens!


[/ QUOTE ]

The whole question revolves around you hitting your set. You are getting proper odds to call preflop. Once you make your set on the flop, you are a favorite to win the hand against this lineup you just specified. If the flop comes monotone and makes the suited hand a flush, then you're a dog. Otherwise you're a favorite to take down a giant pot.

Regards,

T

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
With 8 people in, I am definitely calling. I would think about capping it myself and then just call.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like a call here too. Capping it here would be bad given your relative position to the PFR(s). You've got a great chance to trap the field for multiple bets after the flop.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

There's no question that this is a call if you can see the flop cheap. This question is, "Is it a good bet if you know it will cost you four bets to see the flop?"

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's no question that this is a call if you can see the flop cheap. This question is, "Is it a good bet if you know it will cost you four bets to see the flop?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"The answer is, 'Yes.'"
-James

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

This is my first post here, so take what i say with a grain of salt.

[ QUOTE ]
If you go to the odds calculator at Cardplayer.com you can put in five players (max) and if you put in your 33 against an AK, QQ, JTs and 67s, you would find that you are only 16% to win. It's worse if there is another pair out there (14%). The only time you are the favorite is when they all hold each other's cards - hey, it happens!


[/ QUOTE ]

By the numbers you are giving you justified a call. You are getting at the bare minimum 8-1 odds to play this hand. Even 14% is ~7-1 odds, so you are loosing money by not calling here.

[ QUOTE ]

I think there are other hands that can give you a much better expected value. Of course, many poker players are action junkies and find a lot of value in the thrill of trying to buck the odds and win a big pot. These, obviously, are the players you want at your table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are worrying to much about if you are "ahead" of other players, from the numbers you mentioned here, you are getting the pot odds.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an easy fold.
You are only invested for $3 and it is extremely unlikely that you can win the hand. Think of it this way; It is very likely that a couple of the players have better PPs and even if the are all complete morons you know that the others have suited cards and if the game is loose no one is folding until the river. So you can call miss your 3 and fold (losing an additional $9) or hit your 3 and lose a big pot.


IMO

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why you don't post in the general forum for poker hand advice.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

I find it interesting that so many posters side with calling when, according to Miller and Sklansky's SSHE, pocket pairs smaller than TT should be folded to a raise and a re-raise. Check the Starting Hand Guidelines for Loose Games.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting that so many posters side with calling when, according to Miller and Sklansky's SSHE, pocket pairs smaller than TT should be folded to a raise and a re-raise. Check the Starting Hand Guidelines for Loose Games.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are talking about caling 3-bets cold with a pocket pair, they are correct. But it is also correct to call 2 more bets in the situation the original poster is talking about.

You may want to think about why that is.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in # 6 and call with pocket threes.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
does that make it any easier to come up with a case for tossing the deuces into the muck ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this Omaha?? Im confused...

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

geez....almosst got through the whole thread without someone bringing up this 3's and 2's bit.


If I had pocket-3's...and then when it got back to me I saw that I had pocket-2's I wold DEFINITELY throw them into the much. Because I was now seeing things that aren't there and would realize that it's time to call it a night.



However....in other situations this is an easy call.
A case can made if you see one guy getting ready to make it 4 bets and the other guy getting ready to make it 5-bets.
But otherwise, calling 2 bets cold here is clearly correct.


Worrying too much about situations where you lose set over set....or worrying about hitting your set but losing to a straight or flush is just silly.
The times you make a HUGE score when you do hit your set are more than enough to compensate for the times when your set or low full-house doesn't hold up.

For some reason there are LOTS of players out there who are convinced that hitting your set in a situation like this is such a bad thing because they feel the chances of the set actually holding up in such a large multi-way pot are too slim.
This is really silly thinking.
When you play a low pocket-pair to try to hit a set you WANT a large-multiway pot.

Playing a low pocket-pair against a small-field is what you DON'T want because the chances of you hitting the set aren't high enough compared with the chances of your opponents paying you off significantly on those occasions when you do.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

I guarantee Sklansky and Miller would say call in this situation, perhaps they'll even chime in here. See MaxPower's post.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

this is a bad first post.

first posts consist of either 1)bad beats or 2) party is rigged.

your post has too much analysis. please start a new account and conform to forum guidelines.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is a bad first post.

first posts consist of either 1)bad beats or 2) party is rigged.

your post has too much analysis. please start a new account and conform to forum guidelines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine was (2). [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is a bad first post.

first posts consist of either 1)bad beats or 2) party is rigged.

your post has too much analysis. please start a new account and conform to forum guidelines.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot #3. I've been crushing .5/.10, should I go pro???

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
... .5/.10 ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Now that structure will screw up your implied odds!

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

[ QUOTE ]
folding would be like setting fire to money.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said.

I never
 

have and wasn't planning to start; thanks for confirming.

Just got off work - looking forward to reading the others.

Re: I\'m sorry but I just have to ask . . .
 

I'll call, check/fold the flop if you miss your card.

Re. it will cost 4 bets to see the flop
 

I was in for one bet before the chip heaving contest started.

If it were 4 bets to me cold it would be a questionable call even if I knew 7 others would be coming along for the ride.

Re: Typo . . .
 

It was 3s.

Replace "deuces" with "treys".

- Or crabs if you prefer. :-)

Thank you . . .
 

Well put.

Minor aside: this site does not allow for a 4th raise (5th bet) but point taken; this would be cause for a possible exception to the "this is a no-brain call" theme.

Question . . .

One of the others answered tongue-in-cheek that among the few things that would convince him to fold would be if he saw one of the two outstandig 3s exposed prior to the action getting back to him.

For those who consider this to be a really close decision - would the fact that the fourteen cards held by the seven other callers are less likely than average to include a 3 ?


If we agree that this is a reasonable inference does this convert a close decision into an easy call ?

That elusive flopped set will become far less elusive not to mention that "peeling one off" when you miss the flop will be a much more profitable play.

Does anyone think this matters much ?

I am reminded of a play I saw in a 15/30 game at the TAJ -

UTG raised, and all called around to the button

He paused then made it 3 bets.

All called around to the cutoff who capped.

A gargantuan pot resulted; the final board was 3-2-K-A-2

Care to guess the three hands that were exposed at the showdown ?

Answer to follow as well as the result of the hand that started this whole thing.

- The result is somewhat interesting but my primary reason for including it is to make my "Party is rigged" claim as I was requested to do by a previous poster.

As to the requirement of a bad beat story - well . . .

This is not my first post so I guess that ship sailed.

Re: Thank you . . .
 

I say that 33 started it, on the river AA, KK, and 22 was exposed.

And the winner is . . .
 

or was - pocket deuces.

A strong showing was made by pocket 3s while AK was never really in the hunt.

AK of course was the UTG raisor.

33 was the button; and our winner was the big blnd.

If you spend enough time in AC you will eventually be pulled aside by "AK" and told about this hand; he says he is sure there was cheating but he can't "prove" it. (Sigh)

Later that night I asked the two of them (both of whom are a bit rockish) if they had had a premonition. They both gave almost identical answers - their premonition was that it was extremely unlikely that anyone was holding on of their set cards and since they were getting almost proper odds to call and try to flop a set why not build a pot since their chances of hitting the flop were far better than the standard ~12%.

If only the winner had said it I might have shrugged it off as crowing but when they both made the same remark it did get me to thinking and it made alot of sense; it still does.

Oh, by the way - I called with the 3s, flopped a set and won a nice pot. (OK, a very nice pot)

I didn't cap it preflop because I did not want to take the bet away from either of the other two; if I hit my hand I want very much to be bet into - maybe even have it come to me already bet and raised.

This may or may not have been the right approach but since I was almost sure it would get capped with or without my help I figured better to play meek.