[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not sure how I misjudged it. Are you saying that in your experience that when all draws miss on the river, UTGs bet into fields of 4 10% of the time?

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? He doesn't have to bluff 10% of the time for your call to be good. Of the three players in the pot, you only need 1 to be willing to play with less than top pair. After the turn gets checked through, ANY of these are possible:

- the bettor is bluffing
- the first, unknown, caller, is willing to call with less than top pair
- the second caller is is willing to call with less than top pair


Any time any of these events occur, your hand may be good. You're getting good odds on your call so it doesn't have to happen often for the call to be correct. So call.

You may argue that the 2nd caller having less than top pair is unlikely, and I'd agree. But the aggressive player taking a shot or the first unknown caller calling with a pair both seem perfectly plausible to me.

Additionally, to put UTG on a bigger hand than yours that doesn't contain an ace, you have to believe he checked two pair or a set on the turn despite having the lead. Of course, anything's possible, but it seems to me that most players bet hands this strong with many opponents and a rapidly growing pot, so you should discount this option significantly. Now it looks more likely that he just hit his ace, and the first caller simply has some pair he wants to showdown.

my 2 cents.
eric



PS. You wrote
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I think you misjudged this one. Both the bettor and the first caller can be ace-free, so there are plenty of hands that you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two sentences, and yet, they contradict each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

But these sentences are not contradictory at all. Perhaps if I'd have written that they both can have a hand without an ace that you beat, it would have been clearer?



PPS... did either caller have a hand that did not contain an ace? If the first unknown called with an underpair, the whole debate would crystalize and calling would be obviously correct.