Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
AKQJ10, the problem is that we are sandwiched between a raiser who has openly stated that he hasn't looked at his hand and the entire rest of the table. Sure, OK, the table is passive. There is a 22% probability that someone behind us has been dealt { TT+, AK } which even your average LLSNL moron would recognise as a hand they probably want to be threebetting here, before we even get into whether anyone at the table is competent and will threebet wider.
I agree. My post was premising set mining on the idea that the table is so passive that basically they'd all give the blind player credit for a raise and only 3! their standard 3! range and upon reflection I agree that's optimistic. Honestly IME $1-2 players are so passive that it wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of them would be scared to 3-bet JJ or AK even with the weird circumstances here. It's like they just have an idea what a "reraising hand" is or a "40 dollar hand" and AK doesn't fit the bill.
But you make a good case about the uncertainty. We don't know they're that passive. Four hands doesn't mean anything, really. And all it takes is a few who aren't ridiculously passive to make 22 really bad here.
Quote:
Let's assume we are 350 deep with villain. That $15 is essentially a blind bet; he's like a non-live big blind. 350 is therefore 23 "big blinds". With a stack of 23BB in an MTT, is your play with 22 to limp UTG?
This only makes sense if you expect people to react to the $15 "big blind" the same way they'd react to the $2 big blind. As explained, I reject that assumption in its strongest form (so it's not a $15 big blind) but agree that a reasonable expectation is somewhere in the middle.
Quote:
Edit: The other thing is that set mining is only as valuable as the chance of getting someone's stack. Here (unlike a normal preflop raiser) the original raiser is very unlikely to have anything if we make our set. It's going to play out like it did in the actual hand, where he will check call two bets, then probably look at his hand OTR and fold.
Actually the OP said there was some chance he might call off blind. When people do things we'd consider completely irrational, even a substantial minority of the time, implied odds on sets go way up. Plus given his play it's quite likely he'd call the river bet with something like J5 on a J4497 board, so the lack of premium hands in his range doesn't matter as much as you indicate (although the worst garbage like 82 is going to have a hard time making anything to pay us off).
So I agree we should fold 22 but I think some of your arguments are more nuanced than you presented them.