Re: Ho hum?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a bet here would be justifiable, but the main reason I raised was for a free turn card, which worked here. A bet here is probably neutral or slightly +EV if I can guarantee both callers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hello. I'm curious as to how you think a bet would be +EV when, even if you guarantee 2 callers, you'd only be getting 2 bets into the pot for your 1. You're 4:1 to hit your flush and MAYBE you can bump that up to 3:1 if your overcards are good outs. I don't think you'd get both callers on the river when you do hit any of those outs so adding implied odds probably won't change things much.
I think you played it properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
My overcards are good for ~4 outs, I would say, especially since he responded to the free card play (so a set is unlikely). 13 outs is 2.5:1 with one card to come, and you'd be getting 2:1. Even if you say my ace outs are tainted (reverse domination), I've got 12 outs (2.8:1) to improve getting 2:1. If I'm not reverse dominated, though, and he's got a hand like 87s, or 67s, or K9s (etc.), I'm getting 2.1:1.
I'm not sure if betting would gain me any extra bets in implied odds if I hit my overcard outs, so I didn't bet. I suppose it could, depending on the player, so I don't think it's entirely -EV. Factor in the remote possibility of getting someone to fold to massive aggression (fold equity), and the bet is probably slightly +EV. I'm sure many people here would make it.
Rob
|