Folding Trips against 2 All-Ins?

sportlasportla Red Chipper Posts: 18 ✭✭
edited June 3 in Live Poker Hands
$ 1 / $ 2
There's are two limpers and MP2 (a LAG with over 50% OpenRaises) opens at $10. I'm in the HJ and I'm calling with 98o. The BU also calls, both limpers call.
On the flop, the pot is $ 43: 8s8c5c. The first limper checks and the second limper (a good player, REG) checks too. The LAG bets $30. I call and the BU calls too. The first player folds, but the second limper now plays an AI check-raise with $300. The LAG also goes AI with around $250. Unfortunately I also call with my AI and $300. The button folds (86 and only $ 150 behind, which I think is wrong).
Turn 6, River 7. The check-raiser shows 55 and wins. Do I have to fold that with $300 behind it and call that with less?

Comments

  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 172 ✭✭
    It seems like you are in the CO with 98o? The HJ who is loose aggressive opens for $10? I just think this hand is a fold preflop, but I'm pretty tight. You flop trips but against an All In check raise you can't like your hand too much. The limper (who you say is a good player) probably doesn't have a big pocket pair that they might play this way. Remember low limit players don't bluff enough when the bets get big and Villain also expects the LAG to lean towards calling. So what can Villain have that you beat? I'd say just fold but maybe I'm way too tight here.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,863 -
    Pretty clear preflop fold for me. Post is tricky. You have no kicker because you're playing a junk hand, and your redraw is low equity. I'd stick it in Equilab just to check how bad it is, but against sensible AI ranges for two opponents I think I'm folding.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 172 ✭✭
    edited June 5
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Pretty clear preflop fold for me. Post is tricky. You have no kicker because you're playing a junk hand, and your redraw is low equity. I'd stick it in Equilab just to check how bad it is, but against sensible AI ranges for two opponents I think I'm folding.

    Nice little nugget of info from Kat. Stick the scenario in Equilab because the math is tricky on the flop.

    For our $300 we will win $643. Our chances of winning need to be over 300/(300+643) = 31.8% If I'm being optimistic it actually is closer than I thought. If the Check Raiser does this with all his trips or better plus a combo draw and the LAG will call with all his over-pairs or better we win around 30% of the time. I'm being optimistic but I've seen people make crazy plays from time to time. If for some reason the check raiser starting adding a lot of the nut flush draws into his range than we definitely have odds to call.

    On the opposite end of this, even though the LAG is giving us all that dead money we know the check raiser's range was 3rd nuts+. I think our chances of winning in that scenario drop to about 20%. If that's the case we only want our effective stack to be ~$20 to make a breakeven call.
  • LoveFishLoveFish IllinoisRed Chipper Posts: 146 ✭✭
    If the villain is a Lag that is opening 50% either 3 bet or fold 98off. Calling is the worst option.
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 21 ✭✭
    I like this hand, thanks for posting it. It really speaks to that feeling of “Wait, what? I thought *I* was the one who hit this flop.”

    There’s a slight issue with the hand history which might mess with the math; if both limpers, Hero, and BTN call the opener, there should be $53 in the pot, not $43. Let’s go with $53, since that’s consistent with the flop action.

    The big question is what does the “good reg” who open limp/called from UTG+1 (if opener was MP2, I think that makes 2nd limper UTG+1?) have that is interested in check raising AI for 2x pot? The hope is that he has an overpair that he was trapping the LAG with, because we can beat overpairs. But that’s a false hope, because 99-AA would all either open preflop, or limp/backraise preflop. 99-JJ would likely open given the bad position, and even if you can make a case that the LAG is opening often enough to try backraising QQ, after 3 callers QQ-AA is almost certainly going to spring the trap preflop.

    So, given that hero holds an 8, there’s only one combo of A8s (questionable if this exists from a “good reg”) one combo of 98s but only if hero’s 9 is a club and one combo of 87s. There’s also 7c6c, which we’re about 60/40 ahead of. I think that’s the best we can hope for from a good reg who took this line. The rest is 3 combos of 55 unfortunately. So against this admittedly narrow range, we are a shade under 39%. It costs $300 to win $683, so hero only needs 30.5%. Good news!

    Bad news though. Just because a LAG was driving the action doesn’t mean he’s an idiot. I don’t think we can just assume the LAG’s money is “dead.” Even if he is sticking it in there with an overpair, that’s 2 more outs twice we have to dodge. But the more salient issue is that a 50% opener can have a lot of 8s that the good reg doesn’t, and that hurts us. Starting with a 50% range and keeping the eights, overpairs, OESDs, and Q, K and A high FDs cuts Hero’s equity to 32%.

    Which, I’m very surprised to say, makes this a “correct” call.

    Having said that, I would fold it every time, because I think we are being too optimistic about the “good reg’s” AI check raising range. I think it’s just 55 and 7c6c. If that is the case, keeping the LAG’s wide opening range but reasonable (for a wild player) calling range, hero’s equity drops to 28.76%, below the 30.5% BE threshold.

    There is another issue that I think is worth talking about. I also would fold this hand preflop, but if I made it to the flop as played I would raise to $80 or so on the flop. Curious to hear what the plan is with flat calling the LAG’s C-bet.

    Again, thanks @sportia. I hate that feeling of going from trapper to trapped!
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 172 ✭✭
    edited June 6
    Math points taken away for my answer. After reading Rosy's I noticed I forgot that we called the LAGs $30 flop bet plus if the Check/Raiser goes all-in for "300" our call is only $270. so once we are making our all-in call decision the math is 270/(270+300+250+ 43+30+30) = 29.3% A couple percentage difference from my first calculation but casino's were built on lessor edges. So it does matter.

    I think this really boils down to how we think the Reg is going to play the all in check raise. In my games I don't think I see enough semi-bluffs to call.

    I once saw Durrr do a play like this and got trips and AA to fold on the flop.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,863 -
    Chris_V wrote: »
    Math points taken away for my answer. After reading Rosy's I noticed I forgot that we called the LAGs $30 flop bet plus if the Check/Raiser goes all-in for "300" our call is only $270. so once we are making our all-in call decision the math is 270/(270+300+250+ 43+30+30) = 29.3% A couple percentage difference from my first calculation but casino's were built on lessor edges. So it does matter.

    I think this really boils down to how we think the Reg is going to play the all in check raise. In my games I don't think I see enough semi-bluffs to call.

    I once saw Durrr do a play like this and got trips and AA to fold on the flop.

    Didn't that involve Greenstein?
    Moderation In Moderation
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 21 ✭✭
    @Chris_V Math points deducted!

    But actually (or I guess in current internet parlance I'm supposed to say 'well actually') I'm pretty surprised this is as close as it is. I think your point is salient about how the reg check raises. That's kind of what surprised me; in a vacuum I was thinking "well, OK, he has 55," so I was surprised that Equilab had it down to ~2%.

    I think in real world situations I don't think much about 2% decisions. This one felt like a 10-20% decision intuitively based on my preconceived notion of "good reg."

    @TheGameKat if this is the same one I'm thinking of, High Stakes Poker, yes I remember it being Durr vs Greenstein. On a related note, this took me down a YouTube rabbit hole where Greenstein was interviewing Ivey. I forgot that in 2003 when they were down to 10 players, Ivey was all in on the turn vs Moneymaker holding 99 vs AQ on QQx9. If Moneymaker doesn't hit the 7 outer, maybe the poker boom never materializes?

    Wild. Poker is dumb.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,863 -
    edited June 12
    Rosy wrote: »
    "

    @TheGameKat if this is the same one I'm thinking of, High Stakes Poker, yes I remember it being Durr vs Greenstein. On a related note, this took me down a YouTube rabbit hole where Greenstein was interviewing Ivey. I forgot that in 2003 when they were down to 10 players, Ivey was all in on the turn vs Moneymaker holding 99 vs AQ on QQx9. If Moneymaker doesn't hit the 7 outer, maybe the poker boom never materializes?

    Wild. Poker is dumb.

    I refer you to Princess Anagramatica.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,863 -
    I believe this is the Dwan hand:

    Moderation In Moderation
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 21 ✭✭
    Good for the game, bad for the game, it's hard to say. But Moneymaker is a hell of a surname.

    I dunno, I don't get anagrams, I can't speak to games or tourneys in Asalgave. I certainly can't beat such a mythical game.

    Essenteen sounds hideous though. But I'm spoiled, biased, and arrogant. Possibly I've been drinking this evening as well. Who's to say?

    Thanks for linking the hand!
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 21 ✭✭
    Not to hijack the thread but . . .

    In the Greenstein/Dwan hand, should Barry be more inclined to call without a diamond blocker? Or does the fact that there were 7 callers combined with the action make this a fold? I like to think I also would have folded, but I don't know, those stakes are so astronomical to me. I guess I would fold out of fear.

    Props to Durr for the side bet prop of calling the best hand for Eastgate.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,863 -
    Rosy wrote: »
    Not to hijack the thread but . . .

    In the Greenstein/Dwan hand, should Barry be more inclined to call without a diamond blocker? Or does the fact that there were 7 callers combined with the action make this a fold? I like to think I also would have folded, but I don't know, those stakes are so astronomical to me. I guess I would fold out of fear.

    Props to Durr for the side bet prop of calling the best hand for Eastgate.

    It's such a weird spot being massively multiway. The table knows Barry has a tight preflop range. They also know he has always used a 100% c-bet strat (typically for largeish sizes), but that has to go out the window with the whole table and the cocktail server in the pot. So Barry's bet into the field screams overpair.

    Dwan's calculation, I guess, is not that he has a pair of tens and thus 2 outs to go along with this cunning plan, it's that he blocks Barry having the overfull. And so when he raises a nit with several players left to act, on a dry board... I mean, what is he repping? I think he's repping being Tom Dwan.

    Then nit #2 Eastgate calls!

    So I think it's pretty easy to put Eastgate on a 2 here, and beyond that my speculation is simply "I know there is only one combo of TT available, and there are a lot of stray 2s in the BB getting that price pre. If I bet, neither Peter or Barry want to play for stacks without the nuts."
    Moderation In Moderation
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 21 ✭✭
    Yeah, you're right and this is great. It's pretty bonkers to actually have the 2 in Eastgate's spot and be worried about the kicker . . . thing is, I assume that's what he is worried about because is Dwan flatting TT pre? Or maybe he is given Barry's UTG open? But why would Dwan setmine if he can get Greenstein to lay down an overpair? It's a crazy hand, well suited for TV I guess.

    Anyone else love it when Gabe Kaplan says things like, "I have no idea what Durr is doing here . . ." ?
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,863 -
    With Doyle at the table, I guess that board may put funny ideas in Eastgate's head. Like Dwan could be playing T2 as a tribute.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 12
    Eastgate bought in for 500k and was covered by Dwan. That's over 600 bbs, which influences the fold, right or wrong; it's not even clear he can reload or if he has credit with anyone at the table.

    Dwan and Eastgate had been playing HU and in the same pool on Stars around that time, giving them a history which Dwan also leveraged. That further means if Eastgate did have credit, he might have to borrow from someone who has taken tons of his money; maybe that is unappealing.

    The connection between this hand and the OP's is that neither hand should be played preflop, ideally. 98o in the HJ vs 5x iso, 42o from the SB are hard plays to turn into positive EV. Knowing what to do with them in tough spots where they are dominated multiway is part of that problem.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file