I think your assumption that Hero will always fold if they don't improve on 7th is totally invalid. Why call 6th if you aren't prepared to make a crying call on 7th (thats what I'm thinking if I'm the villian). You know that he has to bluff if he has a worse two pair hand. Thus betting a 10 could be a very thin value bet that can never be raised.

ProPokerTools Razz Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
kj9742k	1.68%	10,101	0
(8-8-4)t36*	98.32%	589,899	0

Does that answer your question?

WTF?? I give up...

Excuse me for being a total noob...

Why do you think that calling 6th and then folding 7th if you don't make your 9 low is a good option? I think you are assuming that a villian is never going to be bluffing this river with a worse hand. I tend to assume the opposite given that the bluff only has to work a small % of the time to have value. Given that a thinking villian *might* assume you have to call even if you don't improve (or improve to a worse 10) and can value bet (you have already said that about 2/3 of the time you will not improve).

Also in order to balance his bluffs with his value bets the villian has to do 1 of 2 things:

1. Mix in check-raises with the lock (so that his 10 check doesn't become exploitable)
2. Bet this river with the lock or thin

I absolutely abhor #1 as I think you are losing out on a ton of value because 95% of players are going to check there 97xxx happily when checked to.

Just a final 2 cents from a noob

Because our jack is good less than 2% of the time... sigh

Sorry. I warned you earlier
I guess what I was trying to say earlier that I think in *most* cases his hand range tends to be a lot stronger then two cards 8 or better (given that he reraised you with a higher door card on 3rd street)

It's np, PPT can be weird to use. What you meant to enter was (7-7-4) then. When you go 2- It thinks you're saying one card is either ace or deuce.

I think its a good thing I fold 5th being a noob - then I don't have to make these hard decisions. Thanks for bearing with me!

I actually purposefully put the 2- in there. I think for him to reraise your 2 on 3rd street I would generally assume he has at least an A or 2 in the hole

Not even close to being true.

In Razz, the cards at the bottom of your hand aren't particularly important compared to the card at the top.

For instance, in general, a 6-5-4 is a better raising hand than 7-2-A.

I know it's a little frustrating trying set a noob straight (Kevin: thanks for your input itt, keep learning!), but it may have got you too tilted to do the math right here. While you may be getting 4.2:1 immediate pot odds on 5th st, you won't be all-in and neither will villain. So you have to factor in implied odds for 6th and 7th sts before deciding on your action on 5th. Hint: it isn't all about equity.

Yes, this hand has bad RIO on 5th and villain will have control for the rest of the hand so that certainly negates the pot odds a bit. I could spend an hour making a decision tree for every possible outcome to figure out for sure the correct play, but in a spot where the pot odds require 19% and we have 37% it isn't even close. If it were something like 32% and 37% then it would be worth looking into, but I don't think there is ever a situation where it would be correct to fold getting 4.2:1 and 37% regardless of how bad RIO are, especially in a limit game. Correct me if I'm wrong.

you have 37% at showdown, not immediate odds. the 4.25-1 is immediate.

try factoring the 2 more bets you'll have to call to see showdown to give you a better idea of where you stand.

This isn't true. I could easily be ahead on 6th street, I don't have to call 6th+7th just because I call 5th, and I could even make a 7 low by showdwon. It's not nearly as simple as having to put in 2 more bets with a bluff catcher. Correctly accounting for implied odds would take a very long time.

You need 32.6% to call down blind from 5th. Surely Villain's ability to not bet can't make that much bigger of a difference than Hero's ability to not call?