Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[yoshi_yoshi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, when he bet, he thought he'd win over 90% of the time (with up to 10% bluffing probability).

He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets. If you think he is bluffing enough for you to call, it shouldn't matter whether zero, one, or both call in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having two callers does change the probability of this guy bluffing or not. Say the guy could be bluffing, betting an ace, or betting something better. OP has a read that the guy could be bluffing or betting an ace enough times that a call w/ AK is good.

If OP also has a read that the two callers are likely calling with aces, that could swing the call into a fold, because it removes the aces from the better's hand range. I think that's what Josh is trying to say.