Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[Robb]

Sorry I edited my post - kind of wrote in a hurry - had a conference call at work.

Anyway, I didn't run the numbers with 95% certainty but it's probably an ok laydown because you chop half the time with the button.

Here's to hoping your read was on.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Edit: Hmmm the more I think about this...and I don't say this often but, based on the way the hand went down it's almost guaranteed MP has AK/AQ/AJ and button has AK/AQ/AJ.
Which means you're right, there are no Aces left. So it comes down to how often is UTG betting into 3 players (albeit one has checked) and can't beat an ace? 1 in 20 might be right. Ha, given all that online I still make a "I can sleep at night" call. But only because I don't trust my reads past the 10% intervals yet: 90% certain, 80% certain. Maybe one day.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I edited my post - kind of wrote in a hurry - had a conference call at work.

Anyway, I didn't run the numbers with 95% certainty but it's probably an ok laydown because you chop half the time with the button.

Here's to hoping your read was on.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Edit: Hmmm the more I think about this...and I don't say this often but, based on the way the hand went down it's almost guaranteed MP has AK/AQ/AJ and button has AK/AQ/AJ.
Which means you're right, there are no Aces left. So it comes down to how often is UTG betting into 3 players (albeit one has checked) and can't beat an ace? 1 in 20 might be right. Ha, given all that online I still make a "I can sleep at night" call. But only because I don't trust my reads past the 10% intervals yet: 90% certain, 80% certain. Maybe one day.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I've never lost sleep over poker [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Seriously, I've tossed away winners in pots like this before (I used to put too much faith in my reads, so whereas it may seem like I'm doing that here, I've done it much moreso in the past), and it never lingers.

When I throw away hands like this as winners (which doesn't meaned flawed logic, though it often points to that), I often end up posting the hand here and getting showed the error of my ways. So far, I've yet to see any error in my ways here....I'm not convinced that UTG bluffs over 10% of the time here....

J

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
So far, I've yet to see any error in my ways here....I'm not convinced that UTG bluffs over 10% of the time here....

J

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that UTG could have Ax here (Ax hearts maybe?), and one of your other two opponents could have a horribly misplayed pocket pair that didn't turn into a set.

The button certainly has an ace to overcall the hijack, but the hijack could have less than a pair of aces, given that the turn was checked around.

[Robb]

[ QUOTE ]
The button certainly has an ace to overcall the hijack, but the hijack could have less than a pair of aces, given that the turn was checked around.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just in regards to what hijack could have....
There has to be a huge parlay for hijack to not have an ace here which means UTG doesn't have an ace:
1. No way he has JJ/QQ/KK - I have never seen one player at 30/60 play the hand this way.
2. a ten - without out another pair - like J10 - so you have to hope he called 2 cold on the flop with a J high pair draw with preflop 3 bettor yet to act
3. a nine - like J9 same comment in addition to the fact he didn't bet the turn once everyone else showed weakness
4. 77/88 you have to hope he thought UTG had a missed flushed draw and that nobody else would call.

Out of all of these I think a hand with a nine in it is the most likely candidate for hijack to have that doesn't contain an ace but still probably less than 2% of the time.

So in other words I thought it was a really bad fold at first but hand analysis shows it's a least a close call (in my opinion). But I still call in case UTG is an idiot and because I don't do this detailed of an analysis at the table.