Was I correct to fold Quads?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero is getting 4.5:1 immediate to call 2 cold preflop. He has two players yet to act behind him, both of whom may or may not call, cap, or fold. How is it correct to call based on that?

Saying that he had 16:1 implied odds, in hindsight, is right on par with saying that he "folded quads". He has as much idea what the final pot will be at that point as he does that the other 2 twos will both come down on the board.

His reads on the two PFRs say that both are loose/aggressive preflop. MP2 is painfully passive postflop, and Button is slightly so (I'm assuming that he's including preflop numbers in his AF; Button is even more passive if not).

As for limping in the first place, Table VPIP=30 tells a small portion of the story. How many players is it averaging to the flop? How many pots are raised preflop? How is the play postflop? I can't imagine that limping 22 UTG is going to be a +EV move, except on a very LP table.

[/ QUOTE ]

MP1 will call the vast majority of the time here. UTG+2 has already provided dead money to the pot. Hero's getting 9.5:2 immediately -- 11.5:2 if MP1 comes along -- with a possibility of it getting capped. If it gets capped, we're looking at between 12.5:3 and 15.5:3.

So, given that, we're looking at needing, on the average, to make up between 4 and 6SB postflop in a 4-way pot where two people clearly like their hands. Is this possible when we flop a set? Yes -- very easily. This is definitely a +variance call, but in the long run, it's a +EV call as well.

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that he had 16:1 implied odds, in hindsight, is right on par with saying that he "folded quads". He has as much idea what the final pot will be at that point as he does that the other 2 twos will both come down on the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

hindsight analysis isn't results oriented thinking in this application.

you know how often you'll flop a set through experience or stats. you can guess how much action you'll get on average thorugh previous experience. if that expected action is above the 4-6 SB's or so that you need to make up postflop, you should call.

effectively what you are saying, is that if this exact situation occurred on the *very next hand*, that you would still fold, even after being shown that these players put in enough bets postflop to warrant the call.

hindsight analysis deals with averages, not extremes. results oriented thinking often deals with extremes (i would have missed my flush, so i should have folded the flop getting 100:1 odds).

[PokeHer]

one thing i am confused about has nothing really to do with the play of the hand...

Whats up with UTG+2? was he all in on preflop? flop, turn, and river each say "4 players" but only show actions from 3. results show UTG+2 held Q9. whats going on there?