top pair with the nut flush draw
.25-.50 NL home game with 5 players.
I am UTG with AsKs
I rasie to $2
mp folds
dealer and blinds call
flop is 8s Kd 6s ....checked to me
I bet $2
dealer calls
SB folds
BB raises all-in to $14.25 and the dealer folds out of turn
What should I do? Also please make the assumption that this player would call pre-flop with anything (except big pockets, he would have raised) and would only checkraise with two pair or a set.
Making those assumptions, I am wondering how do you properly calculate the odds of him hitting a full house and making your flush draw dead.
I am UTG with AsKs
I rasie to $2
mp folds
dealer and blinds call
flop is 8s Kd 6s ....checked to me
I bet $2
dealer calls
SB folds
BB raises all-in to $14.25 and the dealer folds out of turn
What should I do? Also please make the assumption that this player would call pre-flop with anything (except big pockets, he would have raised) and would only checkraise with two pair or a set.
Making those assumptions, I am wondering how do you properly calculate the odds of him hitting a full house and making your flush draw dead.
Comments
Board: 8s Kd 6s
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 42.4242 % 42.23% 00.20% { AsKs }
Hand 2: 57.5758 % 57.38% 00.20% { KK, 88, 66, K8s, K6s, 8c6c, K8o, K6o }
Now the pot odds:
8 bucks in the pot pre-flop
18.25 more when it comes back to you
You have to put up 12.25 against 26.25. 42% of the time you win 26.25 while 57% you lose 12.25. Definitely +EV to call.
I believe you should also factor in a small % that he could be making this play with a worse hand than you have given him credit for. In this case, it is even more +EV to call.
Even without pokerstove, this is a call in my book.
Even without a pair, this is a call in my book.
Why AJ? Why?
Mickey, change the board to Q86. Put him on 2pr or better. Still a call?
Board: 8s 6s Qd
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 32.2924 % 32.29% 00.00% { AsKs }
Hand 2: 67.7076 % 67.71% 00.00% { QQ, 88, 66, Q8s, Q6s, 86s, Q8o, Q6o, 86o }
Much closer, I think.
Even without two cards, this is a call in my book.
pkrfce: You are far too pessimistic and give your opponents too much credit. If you can accurately put your opponent on two cards consistently, you should be playing Beal for millions. Why does villian have to have two pair? Why not KQo or KJ or even worse? How about a bluff?
gotta go with call, actually, I think in this spot you are allowed to stand up and laugh mightily, and even hit your opponent about the face with your cards.
Given this exact range of hands... it's a very close decision...
The actual math nets you 18 cents everytime you make this call given the OP bets
At the poker table, I can't put an opponent on this narrow a range without ALOT of history, even then... I'm getting 2 to 1 to call... an opponent could show me 2 pair right at the table... and I'd still call... (and most of the table would think I was crazy
That's a joke, right?
First off it was me, not pkrfce, that made that assumption, and he was simply responding to the question which I asked. Second, a very important part of this scenario is the fact that this is a home game and it is not difficult to read betting patterns of your friends after playing with them for several years. Obviously you have played the game a few times and have had to place your opponents on a certain range of hands. If you are unable to do this, then your money is always welcome at my table.
Very much so. The OP mentioned that his opponenet would ONLY make that move with those hands. I agree with BBCZ, if this guys buddy is so easy to read, and would never in a million years alter his game, then I would be very shocked.
If your read is so great, why did you post? You can do what Pkrfce did and run the hands yourself. There is apparently no discussion that we can possibly engage you in on this hand.
I assume you called, he had two pair and you didn't improve.
Now.. if you are interested in maybe learning something.. Someone taking an action 5%-15% of the time is a vastly different stance than someone who will never make that play. If he really is some sort of robot that plays poker by a 2 line 'if' statement, you have to fold. If he can bluff or make that move as little as 1in 8 times or so with TPTK or less, then you have to call.
Apparently, there is some room for discussion, since you seem to disagree with the analysis done by pkrfce9.
I am not trying to say that I am a great player (note the size of the game) but some players are easier to read than others, and when a loose passive player checkraises all-in, then he has a hand. In the three yrs of playing with this player, I cannot remember a single time when he tried a checkraise bluff. If he has a king, then he is worried that his kicker isn't good enough, and if he has a draw, he may try to bet out, or just limp along hoping to hit. Note that I was not asking anyone to analyze this players betting habits based on one single hand, I simply laid out a situation that has happened to me a few times and I was wondering about the comparison of my outs vs. his outs with 2 cards to come.
So I guess another question comes to mind. If you have played with someone alot, and have never seen him raise with anything less then pocket aces or kings, he raises and you have AK, do you make the asssumption that this is the one time he has decided to raise with a weaker hand?
This thread has gotten silly, the analysis done is evident, against two pair you have a ton of ways to win, and against a set you still have outs. If he's on a draw, great, because you're on the NUT draw.
for god sake call.
I think maybe you don't like the fact that you have to put such a considerable amount of your win on the table to make this call when you may be behind. I am also like this, which is the very reason I don't play no limit hold em outside of tournaments.
So my new advice is to fold the hand, go right to Brantford and take up the 2-5 limit game where you'll be able to make these calls without fear of going broke.
I like Harrington's book that says something like "Everyone bluffs sometimes." I would sum this up as "Whatever you THINK about your opponent, there is some chance that you are wrong."
Given that reality, this is case of "small dog or BIG favourite." In other words, your worst case scenario has you as a marginal loser. Your best case scenario has you dominating this monkey for all his money. Bwahahahahaha.