Is My Thinking Flawed...Pre-Flop Implied Odds

[Stew]

First off, this may be the wrong forum, but I'm not quite sure if another forum is more appropriate than this. As you can see, I am a long-time 2+2er, but rarely post in this particular forum, though I read it regularly.

OK, so let me set the situation up. I'm at Caesar's Indiana, playing 3/6 Limit Hold 'Em, I play there once a month or so.

I'm on the button, six players are dealt cards. We just went from a full ten to six, as two are sitting out and two left the table.

UTG calls, he is a somewhat loose, but tricky player. I had been playing with him for about two hours. He liked to take flops, but had a check-raise semi-bluff on the turn in his arsenal, along with being rather agressive. He also liked to check-raise the river, when a scare card would come. However, he also seemed to do this when the scare card helped his opponent, instead of hurt him.

Second player also limps. This is a guy who played about every flop. He had been at the table for a couple hours also. He claimed to be a stud player, playing hold 'em for the first time and after observing his play, I do believe him. Not a bad player, but took too many flops. Also had a huge "Strong when Weak" tell in that he'd forcefully bet when weak. Liked to play to the river, no matter what.

Third player, very tight, but weak. I had played next to him for over three hours and he'd raised three times in those three hours, twice with AA and once with KK. I had been very observant of him and vowed to stay out of hands with him when he raised.

However, I look down and see pocket sevens. Normally I'd fold this hand, but I decided to call and let me explain why. Here's where i'm wondering if my thinking is flawed and did my results skew my reality. I knew when calling the raiser he had an overpair and most likely AA or KK. In fact, I discounted any other hand except QQ as I'd never seen him table that. He had limped in the previous 3 hours with JJ twice, AK suited or not on at least 4 occasions and AQ three tiimes.

My reason for calling is that I knew the SB and BB would call the raise as they had done so in those situations before with any two cards as far as I could tell. Further, I knew that the two limpers would also call. I also knew that at worst I may face a bet and a raise by the time it got to me on the flop (either UTG or +1 may bet if the flop hits them and pre-flop raiser would raise). I also thought that the SB and BB would go to the turn no matter what, along with everyone else.

So, my thinking was if I could catch a third 7 by the turn, there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-$70 in the pot and I would have possibly invested $12 to get there, two small bets pre-flop and flop. Additionally, I knew that if this pot got to the river, it would be huge. As I stated, at least 18, small bets by the turn or 9 big bets. Then, probably at least another 4 big bets on turn and river each, if not more. So, I was thinking the pot would be at least $100, if not more.

So, even though I knew I was behind, I figured I was getting around 10-1 on my money to catch a set by the turn and my implied odds pre-flop were huge...as I am 8-1 or so to flop a set. Is this thiking flawed?

Results in white as follows:

<font color="white"> </font> Flop came 7s, 6d, 9d. I had 7c,7d. UTG bets out, initial raise raises. Normally I'd raise here, but I felt a turn raise would be better. The two blinds bail and two limpers, call. Turn is a 3h. Initial raiser bets, I raise, UTG calls. River is the 6c. Initial raiser bets, I raise, UTG as he has done at least 5 times already fiddles with his chips, stares both me and initial better down, counts off a raise, smiles and raies. Initial raiser calls. I shrug my shoulders and raise. UTG FOLDS.. Can you believe that? Anyway, initial raiser calls with AA and I scoop a huge pot. <font color="white"> </font>

[AaronBrown]

I'm not quite sure of your reasoning here. You wouldn't go heads up with 7 7 against an assumed Q Q or better. Okay, four other people in the pot help the situation in the sense that you have better than one chance in six of beating the Q Q. The trouble is, some of those hands may beat both of you. Even someone betting on nothing can catch something on the board.

I also see your point that you can fold quick if you don't get a 7 on the flop; and that you might win big if you do. But you could also lose big. After the flop, suppose someone held two diamonds? Or an 8? Even a high-card/9 could be trouble for you. The 3H makes things look better and, of course, the river 6 clinches it. But you could have lost big just looking at the flop. And this was among the best flops for you, with only two cards that improved your hand.

I think this is losing poker in the long run.

[TripleH68]

If you feel condident this will not be raised behind you preflop I think it is fine.

If you don't hit your set or an OESD this is an easy hand to get away from.
Only possible trouble is your position relative to the uber-tight preflop raiser.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure of your reasoning here. You wouldn't go heads up with 7 7 against an assumed Q Q or better. Okay, four other people in the pot help the situation in the sense that you have better than one chance in six of beating the Q Q. The trouble is, some of those hands may beat both of you. Even someone betting on nothing can catch something on the board.

I also see your point that you can fold quick if you don't get a 7 on the flop; and that you might win big if you do. But you could also lose big. After the flop, suppose someone held two diamonds? Or an 8? Even a high-card/9 could be trouble for you. The 3H makes things look better and, of course, the river 6 clinches it. But you could have lost big just looking at the flop. And this was among the best flops for you, with only two cards that improved your hand.

I think this is losing poker in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaron, I appreciate your advice, but first of all, you have 60 posts, which isn't a big deal. But, you really didn't explain yourself well at all.

It's not like I make this particular play all the time. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever called a raise with an underpair KNOWING the raiser had an overpair. Nor do I think I ever would again. However, my original question was as I STATED, do the implied odds based on the table condition make the play feasible as this was the reason for my call of the raise.

It wasn't HU, so I don't even know why you would say that.


BTW, "losing poker" as you explained it sounds to me like being afraid of what can beat you, rather than looking at what you can win. I already knew I was behind, I was looking at the money I could win.

If someone offered you 10-1 on the fact a six-sided die might roll a 6 on one roll, shouldn't you take it? Sure, it could turn up 1,2,3,4 or 5, but the odds are better than the bet and you should take it(assuming you know the die is fair).

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel condident this will not be raised behind you preflop I think it is fine.

If you don't hit your set or an OESD this is an easy hand to get away from.
Only possible trouble is your position relative to the uber-tight preflop raiser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was confident (but certainly not sure) that there would be no raise behind me. The SB had not raised a pot in the hour he'd sat there. The other player was a local rock that I'd played with two other times and I was pretty sure he wouldn't raise it...very weak-tight.

Also, I felt good about my position, I was on the button. Additionally, I liked having the uber-tight player on my right who could bet my hand for me and I could lure in the two early limpers if I hit my set for big bets on the turn and river.

[RiverDood]

Overall, I like the play a lot, because if you hit your set on the flop, you've got two turbo-lemmings sitting across from you who will build an enormous pot.

But Aaron's post has the nub of an interesting insight. Even with this ideal flop, you're not guaranteed to win the pot. Both the overpairs can chase two-outers for a set, and maybe one of them can chase a runner/runner diamond flush.

I assigned suits arbitrarily on twodimes.net, and you come out with a 77% chance of winning the whole thing after that flop if there's one guy with a faint shot at a flush. Say QQ includes the diamond queen. Then he's 13% and AA no diamonds is 10%.

So you're in great shape, but it's not quite 100%. Even if there's no runner/runner flush draw for either of the overpairs, your win percentage stays a whisker below 80%.

You had no way of knowing that you'd be up against both AA and QQ. Your odds would improve if there was only one overpair. Yet you want more than one opponent after the flop, and even a weaker continuing hand would have had an out or two. So your opening calculations need to be adjusted for the risk that you hit your set and someone else still musters up a better hand by the time the river comes. If that happens, I don't think you're getting away from the hand.

I think the play still works. But it's a much tighter calculation.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I like the play a lot, because if you hit your set on the flop, you've got two turbo-lemmings sitting across from you who will build an enormous pot.

But Aaron's post has the nub of an interesting insight. Even with this ideal flop, you're not guaranteed to win the pot. Both the overpairs can chase two-outers for a set, and maybe one of them can chase a runner/runner diamond flush.

I assigned suits arbitrarily on twodimes.net, and you come out with a 77% chance of winning the whole thing after that flop if there's one guy with a faint shot at a flush. Say QQ includes the diamond queen. Then he's 13% and AA no diamonds is 10%.

So you're in great shape, but it's not quite 100%. Even if there's no runner/runner flush draw for either of the overpairs, your win percentage stays a whisker below 80%.

You had no way of knowing that you'd be up against both AA and QQ. Your odds would improve if there was only one overpair. Yet you want more than one opponent after the flop, and even a weaker continuing hand would have had an out or two. So your opening calculations need to be adjusted for the risk that you hit your set and someone else still musters up a better hand by the time the river comes. If that happens, I don't think you're getting away from the hand.

I think the play still works. But it's a much tighter calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post and you are right that I did not take into account the fact that I could hit my set and still lose if the hand went to the river. But, I think arbitrarily assigning hands and cards to players in the game I was in or in general is not an exact science.

I also don't know where you got QQ at. I only saw one other hand at the river and that was the pre-flop raisers AA, I don't think anyone had QQ that I'm aware of.

[RiverDood]

Thanks. I read the 7th paragraph of your original post too fast and conjured up a QQ hand out of it -- reading more slowly now I see you were actually making a different point.

Anyway, glad the hand worked out. They'll be muttering about your crazy/smart play for years.

[Vash]

The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with your hand is that even if you flop a set, there are 2 outs for you opponent and, more importantly, 8 scare cards out there. You figure your opponent for AA, KK, or QQ... now what do you do when you flop a set and the flop or turn puts an ace, king, or queen on the board? For all you know, he just picked up a higher set... which could cause you to make an incorrect fold, or even worse, if he DID pick up the higher set and you think he's simply betting the overpair, you could lose a serious stack of chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the question isn't about the play of the hand after the flop, or anything else that happened from the flop on. If I wanted that advice, I'd post it in the SS forum....it is soley the question of whether or not calling with 77 on the button in a SHORT-HANDED pot with what will based on table conditions almost certainly have 8-10 big bets in it by the turn, and probably at least 15 or more when the hand is over.

BTW, I would never incorrectly fold a set if an A or K came in this scenario, at worst I'd check-call it down, there is too much money in the pot to fold.

Again, you are worried about things that could happen to cause you to lose the hand, not win a lot of chips.