Full Tilt Poker $0.50/$1 Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo - 9 players - View hand 30366
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Hero (MP1): $211.60
MP2: $135.60
CO: $67.05
BTN: $59.25
SB: $25.40
BB: $46.50
UTG: $179.10
UTG+1: $124.65
UTG+2: $90.65

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is MP1 with K K A Q
UTG calls $1, 2 folds, Hero raises to $3.75, 1 fold, CO calls $3.75, 3 folds, UTG calls $2.75

Flop: ($12.75) A A 9 (3 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $1, CO calls $1, UTG raises to $16.75, Hero???

What do we do here? I actually misclicked to lead out for $1 (was going to go for $10 or so), but does it change anything? Has it actually saved me 9 bucks?

If i lead out for $10, I am sure villain will put me on an ace, and therefore only raise with a FH, but due to the accidental $1 bet, im not sure anymore. Does my raise pre define my hand enough to most players? Thoughts?

i don't hate a 3bet here and fold to a 4bet, you have 2 Ks dead so AK is less likely, so it has to be A9 to be beating you. A9 won't flat here and will 4 bet basically 100% of the time. Worse won't 4bet imo. 3 bet to like 36, if he 4 bets, fold if he flats, ship pretty much any turn imo. min betting here def widens his range i think.

I like JWorth's reasoning. A side effect of the min-bet and then 3 bet is if it gets showndown, especially if you win, now you can sometimes make odd min bets when you aren't so strong and are perhaps looking for a cheap card.

I had typed something up about a min-3-bet, as Josh suggested, but deleted it because I am not sure I want to give up the implied odds I have by calling. You're getting something like 10-1 to call when you are at worst probably 25% equity. I'm still not sure of the right answer. Obviously I am assuming UTG ships any turn, even those that hit me.

Yikes! We have no idea if UTG has a full house or not. I think in general we have to fold. Hard to say. I don't know. Again it's hard to say. I think the mini bet probably changes everything, but (especially without knowing this opponent) I don't know how. I don't think so.

Buzz

Buzz,

I don't disagree with you much, but let's have a go here.

I think folding is a terrible option.

If UTG does not have a full house, his check-raise puts him in a bad spot thanks to his position (although he may not know that).

But first let's start with assuming he has a full house. You can bet that he will put his whole stack in, and he pretty much has to given his position, irrespective of turn and river. OP thus is getting 10-1 to call when he has about 25% equity against an A-9-x-x hand where x-x is not a King or a Queen. So calling the $15 extra dollars seems correct.

Now what if he doesn't have a full house? Well, if he leads the turn for the full pot, we have to give him credit for a full house and fold if we have not hit. So it is as if he had a full house, and calling was correct. Similarly, if we hit ... and he may be reluctant to fold given how much he's already put into the pot. But then you throw in the added benefit of the possibility that he might check -- not unlikely if he figured OP was weak with the $1 and figured he might steal the pot with a big check-raise, as who would call a check-raise after betting or calling $1? -- and you either can take a free card or bet depending upon what seems correct.

So in my opinion calling is never wrong and folding is never correct.

Maybe I've completely butchered this, I don't know. I am not very good and looking at these things on a screen.

When you do disagree with me, my first impulse is that I’ve probably made a mistake. The check-raise by UTG (Villain) seems (to me) a rather strange bet.

You’d think that if he wanted to bet the hand, he would have just bet it. Or if he wanted to slow-play it, he’d continue to do that.

But on the other hand, Villain may be confused by Hero’s mini bet. Having seen Hero raise ~88% of what was possible before the flop, Villain may have fully expected Hero to bet the flop, sort of a continuation bet. And Villain may have psyched himself into a check-raise mode. Then when Hero makes the mini-bet, perhaps Villain is unable to adapt and he goes ahead with the original check-raise plan.

Villain manages to get enough into the pot ($16.75) on the second betting round so that if Hero calls, Villain will be able to go “all-in” on the third betting round. Maybe Villain so fully expected Hero to bet that he planned on raising enough to manage to get “all-in” on either the second betting round or the third. Maybe that was his thinking from the outset of the second betting round.

I think Villain either has
• A9YZ (the nuts),
• 99YZ (a vulnerable full house),
• AXYZ (trip aces – sort of a semi bluff in this situation),
• a club draw (a weak semi bluff),
• none of these (perhaps simply a bluff or over optimism).

Any of the above is possible. How possible depends on the opponent. I’d guess he probably has one of the first three listed.

Either one of the first two, A9YZ or 99YZ is just as likely to have been dealt as the other, if Y and Z are neither aces nor nines. You’d think Hero would have a greater chance with 99YZ, and he does, but it’s not much of a difference. Hero has about a 25% equity either way. That is, Hero should expect to win about one time in four if Villain already has any full house. (That’s very crude, but in the ball park).

If Villain has AXYZ without a king, then Villain has four more outs to make a full house than Hero, but Hero has the edge if nobody makes a full house. Overall, Hero has the edge if Villain has AXYZ without a king.

So worst case scenario has Hero with about a 25% equity if Villain already has a full house and even better if Villain doesn’t. That's as simulated and surprises me. I thought it would be lower.

There will be $47.50 in the pot if Hero calls the $15.75 raise, and Villain will be able to put his remaining $46.55 into the pot on the next betting round.

Thus Hero is getting implied pot odds of 78.3/15.75 = ~4.97 to 1 to call. Let’s call it 5 to 1.

• (47.50-15.75+46.55)/15.75 = 4.97

So one time out of four, Hero wins five and three times out of four Hero loses one.

By gosh you’re right again, Niss! Thanks for the correction.

Hero should call.

He does have about a 25% equity but he’s only getting 5 to 1 to call, I think. No matter, with 5 to 1 implied pot odds, it’s a clear call, and if we throw in the times Villain won’t have the nut full house, Hero’s equity is even better than 25%.

It’s a definite call.
Agreed. Agreed. I think you got the pot odds wrong, but I think your conclusion is correct.

Thanks for the correction.

Buzz

Buzz,Niss

A quick point, obviously the hand EV assumes showdown.

Are you going to ship your $46 into the $47 pot on a blank turn? If so, why not shove now and get rid of any other AKXY hands? (I would assume that for example AK34 has more EV than AKKQ)

If you are going to fold on a blank turn, would this mean the implied odds are misleading? As, you're really putting $15 in for $45 on a single turn card?

Yes. When one of two players gets all-in, as might well happen here, the hand is going to showdown. I see where you're going with this. Hero could call the $15.75 on the flop and then decide to fold to a $46.55 bet on the turn.

On the turn Hero would be getting ($47.25+$46.35) to $46.35 or
2.02 to 1 to call. And if he missed on the turn, his e.v. certainly wouldn't be any better than the 25% it was on the flop. I see the dilemma. (I don't see the solution yet, but it's late and my thinking is fuzzy. Can't guarantee I'll see the solution tomorrow either. I don't know. Good point. Right now I don't see why we have to call on the turn. This merits more thought. Looks like a paradox. I think so as of right now. This merits more thought. Good point.

Buzz

Buzz, re: pot odds -- maybe I made a mistake, but I'm not sure.

UTG (the villain) has $179.10 to start the hand. Hero has more. After the flop, UTG's put in about $20. So he has $160 left to put into the pot on the turn and river. OP is facing a raise of $17. So that would be a little less than 10:1 for his stack.

As to whether shoving here is better than calling -- I generally prefer to shove than call, but in this instance I think the call makes sense because of the possibility that the Villain is bluffing/weak from poor position, and checks the turn.

As for whether the implied odds are misleading, I don't believe that to be correct, although I understand what you are getting at. The question is whether the equity of 25% is misleading because you will fold a blank turn. Even if you cut the equity in half, however, you're still at no worse than 12.5% while getting 10:1. But then you have to factor in the possibility that UTG checks the turn, so you might get 2 cards for your call.

And then you also are not considering that you might get the extra $45 that CO has left into the pot as well.

It's a tough spot and shows why min-bets in this game are generally ******ed, and why players who min-bet drive me nuts.

Thanks for the good discussion. I did flat, and he potted the turn again.

What was the turn card?

3 or 4 of clubs. Also, it was an insta-pot.