Why?

Why not?

Because it's a good play, common at 2/5, based on concepts that became widely known at least a decade ago

See post #37

I think you are fixated on the flop raise and not thinking about the turn shove. Shoving the turn with Tx is not rare. For some players, their overbet shove range is 100% trips. Even if they are unlikely to have min-raised the flop with middle pair, you should use Bayes theorem here and ask what the probability is that they have a ten in their hand, given that they overbet shoved the turn.

You also seem to have a problem believing people might do something that you never would.

OMG, again, and you even helped my point by trying to dispute it: min-raising pre with middle pair AND THEN shoving turn when you hit trips is not something most players do at LLNL. Yes, they sometimes min-raise second pair; yes, they sometimes shove trips on the turn; yes, they sometimes do both -- but it does not happen often. Period. You can never make me believe it does. Why, because I've never seen it. Please tell me the last time you saw it and how often you have seen it. And, please tell me about all the times you have done it! (Please don't make up hands, which I wouldn't put past either of you.)

Java - Villain in this hand has sent two distinct, but clearly opposite messages with his line of play. Focusing on ONE is a leak.

His min-raise on the flop is so call-able, it must be a strong hand
His shove on the turn is so bluffy, it must be a weak hand

or, you could say that this is a 2/5 game, it's totally possible that V has some clue so you could easily interpret his line as:

His min-raise on the flop is a calculated play in high c-bet situations. Weak hand
On the turn, he can't make a bet that prices out the draws and allows him to fold later. So he shoves. Strong hand.

Two completely different actions, on two different streets, could be interpreted two different ways. Flop strong/turn weak or Flop weak/turn strong. Both are entirely plausible.

I'm not arguing definitively for one interpretation or the other. I'm merely trying to illustrate that both are totally possible and make complete sense. Just because YOU wouldn't take one of these lines, doesn't mean it's crazy, rare, or bad.

We have one pair, and no draw. Villain's range is either crushing us, or has significant equity, even with one card to come.

There is absolutely no reason to spew off 100BB's by calling here. None.

So you are done derailing and now you are going back to the hand -- completely ignoring my questions. Figures.

(Actually, I'm glad. Stick to the hands, please, and stop derailing!)

I assumed they were rhetorical questions.

Yes, I've seen people raise mid-pair. Yes I've seen them raise it for the minimum. I've explained why it's an excellent play, and I've said many times that I've been aware of these concepts for at least a decade.

The last time I saw someone overshove with trips....that I remember, April 10th, my last casino trip. Full table, 1/2, two limps to me, I raise with AJ, one caller, flop comes KK5ss. Villain shoves, for about 60 or 70BB. I fold, he shows KJ and says "couldn't let you hit the flush"

OK, but when was the last time you saw someone min-raise middle pair against pre-flop raiser (big part of it) and then hit trips and shove? When was the last time you did it -- or either one for that matter. You are such a good player, you should be doing both often, right? Would you have done both if you were V in this hand?

I am not saying it doesn't happen. I am not saying it didn't happen in this hand. I'm saying it doesn't happen often. The end.

Java - you've taken this argument somewhere else entirely. I'm merely showing you a plausible line. In no way am I advocating it as a definitive read in this hand. There are no definitive reads in this hand, which is why you should fold.

Why are you calling?

I've never done it because I don't min-raise. That has zero correlation to how others play.

Even though the combination of minraising with middle pair then shoving the turn is rare, it is more likely than you seem willing to admit, given that the turn was actually shoved.

Here's what you should do. Ignore flop and preflop for the moment. Based on the board and the size of the shove, come up with a range of hands that would play the turn that way. Then, use the earlier action to filter out hands that are inconsistent with flop and preflop play.

You've done nothing like this in the thread, only insisted that trips is so improbable as to be impossible. You are exactly the sort of player who I like to slowplay a hand like a set on a wet board because you can't possibly imagine that I have a string hand instead of the flush draw I am representing because you think I would have raised.

Appearances/ages of hero and villain could be helpful if no other reads available.

But >90% of the time I fold here. Maybe I call if I'm omc and villain is young with hoodie and headphones but the price is not right, we have 2 outs and villain doesn't have to be poker genius to know his bet looks like he's trying to scare us away/fold us out.

Also v good point pez or whoever about remaining stack sizes. Not much choice on river if there is a bet here

Wow I'm reading this thread and find myself agreeing with JN. This must be some kind of bizarro backwards day.

LLSNL officially jumps the shark when it has a 5 page thread dedicated to the merits of minraising second pair on the flop.

Wow, you just made my day even better -- even if it is bizarro and backward!

I can't believe not a single person wants to 3b this flop...

We screwed that up when we bet so small pre-flop.

I don't believe that stereotypes based on demographic information are reliable enough to justify adjusting one's play. We don't need to debate this; I've heard and considered the counter-arguments. My point is that my decision to omit demographic information from my posts is intentional.

To add some closure to the thread, I folded without much delay. Villain later posed the question: "Did you put me on a ten or on a flush draw?" I'm not sure whether the stupidity of his question makes me feel better or if it instead makes me feel worse.

Is an interesting question, sounds like he had a 10

Isn't the joint probability of all these events largely immaterial since we are concerned with the probability he has a hand better than AA given the action?

For example, if the probability of getting hit by lightening, winning the lottery, and flipping a fair coin heads is incredibly small, that shouldn't lead us to assume we will always flip tails after getting struck by lightening and winning the lottery.

So basically, instead of arguing how rare it is for trips to do this, you need to be arguing that it is more likely they have some other holding given the action. (FWIW I think this is hard to know, specifically because these spots don't come up that often so we are lacking tons of empirical evidence).

I suggested it post #16