Under-full, too much action?

Thanks for the responses everyone;

I called, and Villain 1 showed 77 for the strangley-played higher full house. I just wanted to see if anyone else could pick up on this... apparently not, so its ok. I figured a flush or trip J's. Villain 2 showed the nut flush. -OmegA

[Lucky]

Live is obviously different, but i'm getting to the point online where, if some weak tightie makes a big bet and I dont have the nuts, i muck it.

While I'll sometimes muck the worst hand, i dont think it's too -ev and its lower variance and positive emotional value.

[muzungu]

Everyone has missed a key point here.

Villain 2's play screams flush, he is LAG, and he has called off $880 so far.

If you are going to play, you MUST set villain 2 all in. You pretty much announce you can beat his flush, but it is going to be almost impossible for the LAG to fold for $500 more with $3100 now in the pot.

If you do this, you will win $500 from villain in the side pot most of the time. I think you are almost always losing $750 in the main pot, but you have a large chance to win $500 from the side pot plus a small chance to win the $1800. It is still close, just b/c villain 1 has you beat so often, but I'd go for it.

Note that if the side pot were not a possiblity, a fold would be in order.

-muz

[smurfitup]

wow, the guy w/ the 7s played that hand so atrociously.. wow...

[fanmail]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, also, is it possible villain 1 could be using his weak tight image to make a huge bluff here?

[/ QUOTE ]
O man, LOL.
thats awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand it is likely he isn't bluffing, as I stated what I thought he had in my previous post. But would this really be a bad time for villain 1 to bluff at this pot?

[ryanghall]

I think I call in this hand pretty quickly.

Sorry it didn't work out.

Ryan

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, also, is it possible villain 1 could be using his weak tight image to make a huge bluff here?

[/ QUOTE ]
O man, LOL.
thats awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand it is likely he isn't bluffing, as I stated what I thought he had in my previous post. But would this really be a bad time for villain 1 to bluff at this pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
haha. yes, reallyreally bad. haha.

[chuddo]

listen to muzungo. villain 1 may have a bigger house, but you have villain 2's obvious flush (or donkeyed AJ) beaten here, so you have to get the rest in.

pot will be too big for him so he can't get away from a big flush. recoup your losses in the event villain 1 is full.

awful awful river call.

[Rootabager]

[ QUOTE ]
listen to muzungo. villain 1 may have a bigger house, but you have villain 2's obvious flush (or donkeyed AJ) beaten here, so you have to get the rest in.

pot will be too big for him so he can't get away from a big flush. recoup your losses in the event villain 1 is full.

awful awful river call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MaGi]

Please tell me that if you decided to see a showdown that you at least pushed so as to win a side pot, since villian 2 doesn't have a hand you can beat.