You had $385 left and the pot was a little over $240. Your SPR was about 1.5 (and less than 1 if the button folds to your reshove). Even if you are behind, it won't be by much and the pot is very large compared to the amount you have to risk. And you are getting a very good price: ~$845:$385 and need less than 32% equity to break even.

There probably is a point where the SPR is too high to stack off against certain opponents three ways with top set on very wet boards. But, that point isn't anywhere close to this. This is obvious when you run the numbers and see that you were well above 32%. And, if you have both opponents straight and flush draws, your odds would be a little better because they would hold some more of their own outs.

Can you give an example where you should fold top set on the flop when it is the nuts 3 ways ?

Nope. I tried running every scenario I could think of, and I wasn't creative enough to find one. The best I got was something like:

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

739,260 trials (Exhaustive)

board: Jt6

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
Jhjd2h2d	31.64%	233,907	0
T987:cc	37.12%	274,386	0
Akqj:ss	31.24%	230,967	0

But, with the money already in the pot and the money we put in on the flop, it is unlikely we can ever reach a spot where we don't have the right price.

Does running it twice effect anything?

Something I didnt mention is what I call "The Sniper". In live cash when pots get large and go multi-way there's usually a player in there who closes the action with a mid/low rundown type hand rather than say a Broadway.

If you win the sim with 109876 type hands how do the numbers change?

how would it

Adding lots of bolding and italicizing to your posts doesn't make them correct. What you said about pot odds is only true when you close the action and there's no future betting. It's not true for example that every hand with 33.33% equity can call a flop pot size bet if more action can happen. It's also somewhat irrelevant to the hand, because top set in this spot almost certainly is far above the pot odds threshold against reasonable ranges.

I understood your post exactly. It is your believing that I didn't understand your post that is the real problem. My initial response indicates that I clearly understood your post. You took what I said out of context and applied it to defending big blinds. Obviously players should not defend their big blind 100% of the time since the equity of many hands is difficult to realize, especially when playing out of position. However, it was ironic that you brought up big blind play with reference to pot odds since people should generally be defending their big blind much more in today's games.

My deleted statement was not completely incorrect. There are many situations in cash games where the only criterium that needs to be evaluated is the pot odds. (Tournaments can be a bit more difficult in this regard since one can believe that the pot odds are sufficient, while a fold is still correct. Many times an additional ICM calculation needs to be made or the situation needs to evaluated, as well.) I deleted my statement because this situation is a bit more complicated than saying that he has the pot odds to call.

It isn't far from correct, however, and the reality is that the pot odds alone do dictate that he should always make a call here. This is because he will always have the pot odds to call a turn shove with 10 assumed outs on the river. Since he always has the pot odds to call a turn shove and he has the pot odds to call the flop, the pot odds alone dictate that he should always call the flop.



Please stop wasting my time. Thanks.

I made my post more specific to the situation and reposted. I didn't bold my statements to make the correct. I was annoyed that tofurocks took a deleted statement, tore it out of context, and then didn't accept that I understood what he was talking about when I told him that I did.

In the future, it's a good idea to just edit your posts instead of deleting and reposting them.

He always has pot odds to call a turn shove and therefore he can use pot odds to evaluate a flop call. When you can compute future action like this, you can and should use pot odds to evaluate your decision even though it isn't closing action.

No. Running things twice reduces variance but not expected value. It's also annoying as hell. But, if it is the "norm" for a game and would cause the game to be less friendly, if you refused, then maybe do it. Personally, I don't. I played in a game where it was the norm and it drove me crazy enough that I stopped playing in that game. Of course, that was a 25c/50c NLHE game and it's just stupid to split $80 pots.

If people are playing big multi-way pots with dominated rundowns (especially if they aren't double suited), buy them a drink and give them your number so they can call you when they head to the game. Those smaller rundowns are great when you are sure all your opponents are playing big cards, but it's hard to flop strong especially if there is a chance someone else is playing slightly higher rundowns. I love them, myself, but I always look at who else is in the pot and how likely I am to be against a similar hand.

In my original numbers, one of the players had a middle rundown. It does reduce your total chance of winning, but they are also contributing to a larger pot.

I did, eventually, come up with an insane situation where you wouldn't have the pot odds to call with the nut top-set on a board 3-way. This assumes perfect knowledge of both hands.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

35,964 trials (Exhaustive)

board: JT6

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
JhJd2h2d	20.32%	7,308	0
KQ98:ccss	73.88%	26,571	0
JTT6	5.80%	2,085	0

If there was an Omaha game, where you flopped top set with JJ22, in position, against two opponents with a $248 pot, and the first opponent shoved for more than your stack, and the second opponent called for more than your stack... then they both flipped their hands before you could act to reveal the 20 card wrap, flush draw, and backdoor flush draw... plus middle set and a Jack and 6 to block your full house outs... then, and only then, would you be right to let it go if you had more than a certain amount (like $125 or something).

It's an absolutely contrived situation, and useful only in the sense that it points out how bad things have to get before you consider a fold. If they didn't show their hands, you would still have to call because their ranges are wider than these two hands.

So, yeah, don't fold. Especially don't fold when the pot is about the size of your stack and you hit the best possible flop you could expect with your hand. I can't understand why you called pre-flop if you fold that flop. What flop were you looking for? KKx?

Edit: my numbers might not be perfect above, mostly because I am doing this on my phone and not at a normal computer. But, the idea remains the same.

Probably true.

It isn't irrelevant to this hand. It is the exact reason that he should always call it. He will always have the odds to play against the big stack on future action. If he knew 100% that the big stack had a wrap w/FD and they were very deeply stacked relative to the shove, then it could be correct to lay it down here. It is the type of fold that a very good PLO player would make.


While many of you may question that narrowness of the OP's read, the OP was correct. It is true that playing ranges is intelligent, however very good players know when they are dead red on a read. The OP should be able to use both ranges and understand when his read is accurate. If he cannot do both, then he will not be as good of player. Yes, it is staking a lot on your read in lieu of ranges, but it is what the best players commonly do and if you can win more money doing it then you should. Otherwise, stick to ranges. Most players make terrible mistakes by not playing ranges.

Yes you should not be folding the nuts here.

'We have the pot odds to call it off' is an odd way of justifying stacking off with the nuts, though. It's not like you have a marginal hand where it's not a given that you have the proper equity to stack off. Of course you're going to stack off with the nuts here.

Seems close but I think I'd GII

It actually isn't that close. He should always call this. If you are certain and want to play your read, then getting it in is incorrect since you get <50% on the remainder of your stack.
Plus, you get a chance to bet the turn or river if the board pairs or a brick comes, when you are >50%. Also, you get a chance to fold the river if you're certain that you're beat.


If he wants to play ranges, then getting it in becomes correct but the calculations are even more in his favor.

You're right, waiting for a safe turn is good too

I expected to be HU and hopefully flop a FD, set, or both.
I clearly wasn't comfortable being multiway, OOP, in a bloated pot relative to my stack. Staring at a button who closed the action preflop and just couldn't wait to get it in. Perhaps a little money-tilt thrown in.

Villain behind must have a wrap & FD. Can't have another set, or 2 pair, or a pair+SD. Solid read mate 5/7 would read again

Take some seconds to enjoy that flop... "I'M ALLL INNNN!"

Another similar spot today (1-2/5 PLO, 9 handed) . Just sat down in BB to take first hand.

Hero BB (100BB/$500) AdAcQc7d
V1 Btn (400BB/$2k, and apparently stuck).

2 EP limpers
V1 (BTN) raises $30
Hero (BB) calls and we take the flop HU.

Flop: AhQh6x

Hero checks, V1 bets $75, Hero calls. Depending on the price I always call instead of raising because: Many live players will jam with a FD on the flop, I want to try to keep the pot smaller so I can see the river for a better price or possibly for free, and one of my FH outs is in my hand.

Turn: 7h

Hero checks, V1 bets $200, Hero calls.

Q: Spewing on the turn? I'm thinking bases on the sizing this call was a very bad play and I should've fold


River was Kc

Hero c/f to a $250 bet. V1 (who was getting up off the table) said he rivered a set of Kings and was bluffing w/Kh. Don't know if I believe him but it makes sense and yet so does a flush.

Yes, we definitely don't want to be bloating the pot with just disconnected double-suited AA out of position. 100bb is so deep after all... And a guy who's stuck/tilted could have anything really, he's gonna have so much board coverage

I never bloat the pot OOP with Aces because I've found that it never think the field and I only get a favorable flop about 10% of the time. 3-betting wouldn't thin the field and would just polarized my range

For example during this session I picked up AsAdKQds in BB and called a $25 raise. Flop: 7,10,8 w/two hearts. I couldn't ontinue being multiway and missing that flop. .

The rest of the 6 hr session was spent folding $300 in blinds and after bad flops.

The game was a mixture of good and bad players. Bad players were calling down with marginal hands (ex bottom 2 pair, bottom sets, over pair) on coordinated boards. One player ran $500 to $2k doing this. The better players end up about even because even though they would win some nice pots they would bleed off on missed draws/flops.

This thread just keeps getting better and better

He's just trolling us. Not sure what is so interesting about it.