[ellipse_87]

The pot is already very large, and the object is to do absolutely everything possible to win the pot. It may be possible to play the flop so that you can protect this hand on the turn against an A-high gutshot. The question is whether the expected value from saving pots in this way exceeds the expected value from jamming the flop.

Someone who's better at calculating hero's equity can provide the expected value from those flop bets (and the later bets from players committed by the flop action). My instinct is that jamming the pot like others have suggested is the better option.

You can protect the hand because you are in the small blind with passive players between you and the PF capper on the button. No one will fold this flop for one or two bets. However, if you check-call the flop and check-raise the turn, a gutshot will face 9-1 pot odds at best. Of course that provides adequate effective odds to chase the 10-1 draw for two bets. However, that player will be caught between a PF capper and a check-raiser, and will probably fold if he anticipates a re-raise by the button.

The thing is, this only serves to save the pot if a non-king falls on the turn, a King falls on the river, and you aren't otherwise beat on the river. Given that the odds of a King hitting the river alone are less than one 10-1, this only theoretically saves a couple of big bets at most.

So jamming the flop clearly seems to be the better option, unless I'm missing other hands hero can protect against that might beat him.