Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Ash
I actually tend to agree - people at LL loooove to slow-play sets. Which is why a check-raise would be the 'typical' play here. But since my read on him was tight-passive, I simply did not expect him to shove with anything less than a set.
And limping QQ or 99 is sooo standard at the LL I play at. Particularly when you get a 'birds on a wire' chain reaction of the entire table limping in.
So my thinking was that V1 probably had at least a set, and V2 was calling on a pair and/or various flush/straight draws since he'd have so much equity. Two-pair is possible - Q9, for example, but seems a bit less likely given the flush draw out there.
I'm still a 3-1 dog to a made 2-pair hand. Reasonable favorite to any flush draw. Obviously big underdog to any made set. Big big underdog to flush draw vs made 2-pair (15%), and massive massive underdog to flush draw vs made set (less than 4%) since I only have 1 out. Against a flush draw and an ATC random hand AA is about 50% on this board. So at best we're a coin flip.
I don't think either villain is playing ATC here; they both have something. So I folded, and felt pretty good about it even before the hand was over.
Turns out, of course, it was V1 that had the nut flush draw with A7s (so maybe my read as 'tight passive' wasn't quite accurate), while V2 had QQ for the set. Flush didn't hit, so the set of queens carried the pot.
If you define three ranges:
1) AdAh
2) QQ,99,22,Q9s
3) 66+,A2s+,K6s+,Q8s+,J8s+,T8s+,A7o+,K9o+,QTo+,JTo (random top 25% hand).
#1 has 10% equity
#2 has 77% equity
#3 has 13% equity.
Our aces without the ace of clubs doesn't look very good.
