Did I Trap Myself? (3-3 PL at the Vic)

[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]
90% of the time I would raise the pot here on the flop but I was definately trying to trap. Risky, perhaps, but I thought the board justified it. There was no flush draw, only a straight draw, and no overs. I'm not positive he would have called a flop raise but think it is more likely than not that he would have.

On the turn, the one hand I could rule out for sure was a set of Kings, based on his pf play. Certainly there was a good chance that he had the nuts when he put me all in. However, I think he would have done this with 99 and my hand was reasonably well disguised. He could have been putting me on AA and trying to get me to lay it down.

The reason I posted the hand is because it raises the following general problem: when someone makes a big bet like this there is X% chance that he has the nuts but just how big does X have to be before you lay down the second nuts? [I considered my hand the second nuts because, as stated I was virtually certain he didn't have KK.]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you are referring to the point where you are raised all in? Pretty simple to calculate this. Based on your post at the point of your decision you have put in 665 into the pot so your remaining stack is at 1035. You just need to figure out the point where your return will be >= 1035.

Probably not a big leap to put villian on either the straight or 44/99 so we can use those as assumptions just to get an idea. Against 44/99 you are .977 to win, Against QJ you are .227 to win.

.227 * total potsize (~3400) = ~771
.977 * 3400 = 3321

So using those assumptions, with all the dead money here you can see for this to be +EV you don't need him to have a set very often. Having it just 10% of the time vs 90% having a straight your return is ~1025 which is just slightly -EV. So the breakeven point is right around there.

Someone correct me if I have fudged any of this real bad, but I think it's pretty close to correct.