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.