Passive with a full house

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
When BB calls the flop, why do you think it is more likely that he has a five than a pocket pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I was very sure on my read when I played the hand. I think he would bet the flop with any pp better than 77 and thus the read.

[pokerhooker]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the problem: if I raise they will both lay down right there a lot of the time and when I get 3-bet I think I'm behind at least 30% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you raise, and they both fold "a lot of the time", I don't see winning the pot right then and there as a problem. It's significantly better than them each sticking around with 6 overcards outs (and since UTG is betting on the turn, you're letting him draw to those for free).

You mention a 3-bet means you're behind "at least" 30% of the time. Is there an upper range on this? The % needs to be very very high for the raise not to be worth it if he was going to fold a non-paired hand, and call with an underpair.

[pokerhooker]

[ QUOTE ]
BB will fold to one bet when he doesn't have a pp or a piece of the board, so it's not worth the ekstra bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused... your previous comment says "If I just call BB will call 95% of the time on the turn AND river ". If it's true he'll call 95% of the time, by all means raise.

[rigoletto]

He is drawing near dead when he calls the turn and he is likely to fold to turn raise.

[pokerhooker]

I think I understand now. I believe you're saying that he'll call 95% of the time holding a 5, yet fold to a raise with the same hand. If he has a 5 and an overcard, he has 5 outs, which is enough to make me want to push him out of the hand and get the extra bet from the LAG.

If you get 3-bet from the LAG, are you calling down, or folding? Without any insight into his play, I would hate my hand if I get 3-bet in this spot. As you mention earlier, if he is capable of 3-betting worse hands, and your likelihood of being behind is as low as 30%, your raise has +ev