2-2 PLO forced bring for 5, 200-600 buyin, full live game. Most players with 400 to 1000 in front. Me and main opponent have ~ 600.

UTG raises to 10. UTG +1 TAG but not a knit takes 2nd raise to 25. Usually means aces. Four of us take flop, 100 in pot. I have K-J-J-3 next to button, no suits.

Flop is K-5-2, two clubs. Crazy guy bets right out $5, lol, as he did 10 or 15 times during the session. Pre 3-better calls, another call, I call.

Turn is Jack of clubs. Trips for me, flush on board. Pre 3-better bets 125. I call. The rest fold.

River is 7 clubs. K-5-2-J-7 (four clubs on board). Pre flop 3-better bets 375.

What do you do??

fold pre.

fold the turn.

fold the river.

+1

seriously what are you doing with such a trash hand in a 3bet pot?
why do you call flop? What do you want to see on the turn? anyway you dont get the odds to call on the turn either so fold turn, arrived at the river you have an ez fold.

As someone who had to fold AA on a freaking A99 board and i was freaking right, I dont get how people get involved in such hands and burn money.
just dont limp and dont call raises with such tragic hands

^ unfortunately its true. this is a very rough sim of the flop but you can see where your equity is at against a couple strong ranges, im not great with the PPT syntax. figuring out what ranges to play pre will set your entire post-flop game up to be better, being able to identify thge right hands is difficult, but i always say if you put some time into studying pre-flop ranges it is one of the 'highest return' investments of study time

Omaha Hi Simulation ?
600,000 trials (Randomized)
board: Kc5c2
Hand Equity Wins Ties
KJJ3 11.01% 65,913 299
cc, A34 45.20% 270,241 1,923
55, 22, AA 43.79% 261,871 1,730

22:1 seems like a pretty good reason

I call one time out of 1000 on the river with trips against a flush board. Here's why I did:

Pre-flop of course I know I'm romancing, but I have late position and a healthy pair (which isn't to say a good hand, but it's 4 AM and I'm playing it for a green chip, get over it).

The key to the hand is the flop. When the $5 bet failed to be raised by the pre-flop raiser, he simply didn't have the nut flush draw with his very evident aces, to a certainty of over 90%. (Details: after 3-betting pre if someone bets into him with this idiotic bet and he has hit the flop, he's raising every time. But he called $5, meaning his hand is so weak it has paralyzed him. Note if it had been checked to him and he checked, it would not have broadcast this weakness, as he might have been looking to check-raise. But calling $5 means WEAKNESS PERIOD, which means no nut flush draw.)

I call the $5 flop bet in last position obviously at over 20/1 odds for a king or a jack ... or maybe a steal in last position. When it comes the jack of clubs and the obvious bluff fires out, I'm calling and calling anything on river (except an ace).

I didn't mind the 4th club at all on the river, but that was academic, .. there's no way I'm folding. He doesn't have it, total non-sequitur his play of the hand, total bluff, total dry ace steal. Because of the $5 call (in what was already a sizable pot for this game).

If he happens to have A-A-x-x with 6-8 of clubs, for instance, no way he's potting into me twice, he's trying to play small ball. It's a bluff. Almost every time. Yes he had black aces, dry in clubs.

Never been more sure of a hand. Over 90%. And my look at him he couldn't believe he was getting ready to be called. "I don't believe you," I said. I win a 1200 pot by playing poker instead of treating the hand like one of a million simulations. It's one of one when you have overriding indicators.

i was wrong about this hand, i didnt read your post closely enough. and you dont need to be lectured on pre flop ranges. for whatever reason i thought the flop got 3b since you wrote 3-bettor.

KJ(J8) is romancing, KJJ3r is just bad. But it is what it is...

Ok, so you say you have a massive live read against one specific player ... that _might_ even be true, even though I wouldn't bet much on it, but it's then worthless to post here.

In general though just calling a donk min. bet means nothing different to just checking, maybe some specific people play differently if they haven't seen many min. donk bets ... or if they are acting on their own "live reads", but I can guarantee if I was planning to check flop then first to act donk min. bet I'd treat it as a check.

"poker" is word with many meanings here, when you post a hand history with no specific reads then GTO poker is assumed and this "hand" had nothing to do with that. You might have a very specific live read and had the fortitude to do the "wrong" thing because of it ... or you might think you have a more general betting tell on all/most/whatever live 2/2/5 PLO players and just be lucky.

tl;dr BBV thread is that way.

even with a ridiculously strong read, how do we know that your opponenet didnt just decide to mix it up and call flop with a low FD? it is hard to justify this line even with a super strong read, but none of us were there and so all we can do is think about the math/the way we approach poker.

in the end if you really were right about this guy, and made the correct read thats an epic achievement

It was beautiful. Nothing to do with weak play on his part, just a weak hand post flop playing it straightforward. The situation was pure, uncamouflaged, and I must say I'm perfectly tailored for that job. He got caught off guard, he played his hand straightforward, and that excluded the hand from being certain things and excluded it in the percentage range I mentioned. It's hardly even a brag, it is just as central to my game as some of my technical weaknesses are (never trained on computer or nothing like that).

It brings up something that fascinates me. The apparent total blindness of some to these kind of things. Once I called with king high on the river and won and folded 3 aces on the river of the next hand and was beat. Well, one guy saw me call with the king high and he just never bluffed me again because he was thinking, even saying out loud, "This guy calls with king high." He seemed oblivious to the special situation, he just put me on auto call, couldn't fold king high. The point is, apparently, it is so different from how he plays and what he sees at the table that he completely whiffed on it and put it up to "can't fold king high." Point: I heard the same thing last night. "He calls pot bet with trips on flushed boards? Jeezus." Yeah, once in my life. It wasn't even hardly a read. It was more like a psychological derivative integrating a good player's behavior and situation and using it, whereas I suppose a bunch of math type derivatives are going on in many players minds. But that thing, "He calls with king high, he calls with trips on flush boards ..." lumping all hands in together is pretty much the opposite of how I see it.

yeah 22:1 no draw nothing its just a like burning 5$

doing this several times will cost you a lot of money, and will NEVER make you money it is just so fk -EV its crazy.

you cant just call only because you get such a good price to draw to a J, you saw what happened.

and the guy who bet 5$ is a straight forward donkfish

peace

3bet pre.; call flop; pot turn; pot river is NOT "straightforward" for the hand he had. It is also certainly not "straightforward" for never having a flush.

Stop with the post luckbox "analysis".

You played a big pot with KJJ3r and called it down with nothing, people shouldn't bluff you much.

Good troll OP. I had a chuckle.

Call of $5 after taking second raise pre is straightforward weak hand, bluffing dry ace esp when all look weak (all just calling $5) is straightforward play, not recognizing value of last position for steal position in a pot where everyone just called $5 on flop isn't serious poker analysis. Some of these replies are trolls, not the original post. Not 90-ish % this time, 100%. You're at the wrong table when you're playing this generic mega-readable stuff with me. I said I called a pot bet one time in my life with trips on a flush board (not as an auto calling station play, just the opposite), was uber righteous in the spot, and trolls see an opp to spring. Why wouldn't they??

The reaction of the math type players and clueless players at the table is what i am interested in most. "Dude calls river pot bets with trips on flush boards, yummee yummee" versus "one time in a thousand he calls it in special situation with great read." From the comments at the table, and most of them on here, it is obviously option #1. Revealing utter blindness to what is actually going on in the situation. Seem stuck in mathematical orientation.

The whole running 1000 simulations of hand misses the whole point in this vein. if you run 1000 simulations of this player acting in this exact manner in his current state of mind, comes up 950 dry aces. Lost in numbers a little?? Yup.

Dude, good player, wasn't having luck that night, quit right after the call. It wasn't because he had a customer who pays of flush boards with trips, yo.

The title of your post is "This hand: best decision?"

Numerous people have already stated the obvious, no, this was not the best decision.

Don't post in a strategy thread, expecting us to understand what reads or feelings you might have had in the situation and then try to back up poor play using the reads that we have no idea about. If you want to start a theoretical conversation of how your play was given X read, or Y situation, that is completely different, and people are happy to do so.

You wanted to know what people would do, so they told you. From a pure analysis, limited information perspective, you played the hand poorly in multiple spots.

When is an ~ 95% winning play poor play? You tell me, genius. I gave the information necessary to see the beauty of it. What part of you do you think is resisting that and why?

And if it was an epic achievement, which I don't believe at all but is simply a synthesizing of factors of the sort of which my game is based, no more epic than if someone did some advanced math on a hand astutely. I am interested in the awesome differences in people in this regard. Some people, as I was saying AND IS MY PRIMARY POINT, are either oblivious to these angles, or consider them a psychic claim. And I think they are serious but I'm not sure. For instance dissing the play as a "feeling" is not only suspicious as insincere, it is almost surely ignorant of what a feeling even represents ("arising from a subconscious THOUGHT"). Just as there is highly advanced strategy based on probability, so there are highly advanced strategems based on behavior. It's sort of mutually exclusive in terms of emphasis, perhaps, make that probably and almost surely, leaving them invisible to each other mostly.

You literally asked the question "What do you do?"

Everyone told you what they would do, at multiple spots in the hand, yet you continue to combat every single post because you made a river call and you were right. Nobody is debating whether or not you had a solid read, and congratulations on a good result.

However, this is a strategy thread, not a brag thread. So from a strategy perspective, you did not play optimally. From an in the moment, I had a read / feeling and went with it, you succeeded.

Don't confuse long term strategy, with short term luck. Both have their place, but nobody that has provided you with analysis is talking in relation to a short term result. The long term play is to pretty much do everything differently from what you did and it has been covered quite completely by the people posting in your thread.

Once again, congratulations on the win, but when you're finished patting yourself no the back for being the best PLO player ever, take some time to actually read the comments and understand why your decisions at certain points might not have been optimal.

If you aren't able to take constructive criticism for your play and learn from it, then just stop posting requests for analysis.

Not at all unwarranted what you say for sure but when I say 1000 simulations of his behavior come back 950 dry aces, and I keep hearing that my play was short term, lucky, unsound, braggadocious, etc. ... then I feel like there is an impasse at what we are even looking at while playing. And that is my main point. The question "What do you do?" always implies "and why" ... "What do you do and why?" and it seemed illustrative of the principle I am genuinely trying to get to. Which is the players after such hands that say, "he calls with trips on flush boards. Jeezus." I still really don't know if their comments along these lines belie any deeper appreciation of the situation, or if it is just that simple. Likewise, a player who is running millions of simulations to cover generic spots probabiltistically is employing a tactic that I am fairly blind to. So I am not saying I am better than anybody at all, I am saying apparently I am light years better, or more attuned, to this element of the game. I believe everyone is familiar with this type of read all day long in everyday life, but sometimes I wonder if they are or if they somewhat are and don't realize it.

It's meaningless. When people say they have a sim of ranges they can post to PPT and people can check their range assumptions and see the result. When you say "I had a read that I guarantee is correct 95% of the time" the assumptions aren't known and the result can't be checked.

And you haven't said "why" ... you've said you had a read, you implied that it was betting pattern related (but everyone disagrees with that, at least wrt the general population).

So what is your reasoning about why villain "weakly" calls dry aces on flop but then aggressively bluffs turn and river, but never calls (as he would check) flush aces on the flop and then value bets turn and river when he hits?

Just keep calling KJJ3r. gl. gg.

Grunch..

fold.

If you don’t like money you could give it to charity or something rather than donk 150 off with a meh starting hand. It’s like posting a Holden Hand where we flat a3bet with 37os and the flop comes AA7. Villain shoves... Hero?

Yada (hardly worth second "yada"). Impasse ... and an insincere one I suspect.

BBV is that way >

Go OP.

Post hand where the population will say fold with information given then proceed to show how you are the greatest player in the worldz where you turn into a station and are correct.

I think your reasonings behind why villain does not have a flush are meh. Flatting the NFD would be exactly what I would do on the flop in mp+1 shoes because I would want to keep you in the pot so you could station your stack off to me when the flush hits