Five Card Stud: Anybody Make This Call?
 

Multiway pot,
Checked around on 3rd street,
You make an open-pair of 3s on fourth street, no other open-pairs are out, bet and are called in 3 places,
You fail to improve on 5th street and check your open 3s.

The action on 5th street is fold, bet, call.

You can only win if the bettor AND caller are bluffing and/or idiots. The pots odds are 61:8 and your call would close the action.

My normal play is to fold or call based on a variety of considerations when one opponent bets into my unimproved open-pair. Against a bet and call, I fold as the caller is likely not bluff-calling.

These plays are, presumably, basic and non-controversial.

But ... the results and analysis have got me to thinking.

The results: I folded and high card king won the hand.

No big deal. Overcalling in this general situation is a long-term loser, so the results should not bother a good player.

However, careful analysis indicates that a call MAY have been in order ... in this very unique case.

The opps' boards were:

7 - T - 8 - 6
T - 7 - 6 - 9

All the 7s were dead and one other T was dead. These opps never bet or raised until the first bet on 5th street. 2nd street was not completed. Suits are not relevant.

What is the first player's hole card? Although he would play a pair of 7s, it cannot be a 7 as the 7s are dead. If you assume that he would not play a T, 9, 8 or 6 in the hole, then he must be bluffing. He cannot have a pair or straight. Even if he might have played a T, his failure to bet or raise on earlier 3rd or 4th street rules seemingly eliminates this possibility.

The second player is not likely to have a straight because he did not raise with the co-nuts (although he might have been worried about a split and was hoping to get an overcall, unlikely though) and he would have to have played an 8 in the hole. The only plausible hole cards that beats the open 3s is if he played a 9 in the hole with the T as his upcard or the case T is in the hole. The T in the hole is implausible as the opp would have bet or raised at some point.

Based on this analysis, you have an auto-call against either one if heads-up. The chances of a bluff are huge. Do these chances create a call against a bet and call? You have no information on the opps' playing styles and skills. A good player may read the bettor for bluffing and bluff-call hoping his call will fold the open 3s. But, a good player probably would want high card ace to make this play as he would hate to drive the open 3s out but lose to the bluff-bettor if the bettor has an ace in the hole.

Again, I understand that normally a fold is automatic but I am intrigued by the very specific details of this hand which may cause an exception to that general rule.

Re: Five Card Stud: Anybody Make This Call?
 

Correctly, it is a fold to a bet and a call usually.

In this instance though it could be a straight representation and a call by a high card who realizes this so a call by you is in order.

Five Stud players love to represent a straight or a flush. This is something you do not seem to have considered in your analysis.

Do not be too hard on yourself for missing this in the heat of battle. I have done much the same.

These three way pots come up in all poker forms. The bettor is weak and the middle player calls realizing this and the third player folds thinking he cannot beat a bet and a call. I repeatedly fall foul of this and so must everyone who is trying to save bets on the end as you are usually beat by a bet and a call unless, as in your example, it is not a run of the mill scenario.

Re: Five Card Stud: Anybody Make This Call?
 

I probably would've folded, too, but I am very new to 5-card stud, so I don't know much yet (I decided this is my best way to clear the bonus at Bodog because I've gotten killed at HE because of the amazing suckouts).

Then again, I was playing .5/1 5-card stud last night and saw a guy call a bet on the river when the bettor had an open KK. The caller had an open QQ and that was it. He knew he was beaten and still called. So, I guess anything goes at low limits.