Originally Posted by joosebuck
you have 2 other people that at least mildly like their hands. i think i'd 4bet this as well, but to like 85 or something, hoping that we get more people coming along or even shoving over us.
I agree with your line Joose, somehow I'm more close to your way of playing these big hands, trying to maximize value and taking a certain degree of risk to get it (lmao, great minds think alike? ).
That's just it with this hand though, it's about risking. Leaving behind results of the hand and who had the diamonds, lets focus on the flop. Not shoving, admittedly, leaves better odds
to all drawing hands (because of pot being 3-way), and the way the betting has gone on a J74 board, 1 of the villains almost has
to be on a FD. Shoving is a great way to price it out. On the other hand, raising it to $85/$100 pretty much still means playing for stacks, because the rest should
go in on the turn, but it has a better chance than the shove to get more money in, and if you're lucky, as Joose says, you might get shoved on.
So the question becomes: Raise it leaving tempting odds (so kind of slowplay it) to get a huge pot going, or shove to get the big stack to fold/draw incorrectly?
I don't think the answer to this is as simple as most might think it is. Common sense is that if we leave proper odds to draws we are the ones making a mistake, and that's true. But in this case our hand can improve to better than a flush. On a 4 to a flush flop, a flush draw is 35% to hit, but here not all outs are clean. Vs a set, a flush draw is only 25% to win from flop to river, and about 16% from flop to turn.
If Caliban raises this to $100, the first villain will have odds of a little more than 3 to 1 to call, and because he's ~16% to hit a clean out, his call would be incorrect. Of course that doesn't account for:
1) IO, because stacks behind us are big
2) 2nd villain has a small stack so he'll likely call at that point making odds much better now for 1st villain
3) if a diamond hits the turn we will throw our PC out the window, in our backyard, severely injuring our dog in the process (adding vet costs to this hand).
There is no garantee that the turn all-in will be called, because we have enough stack left to price him out of a draw, but we made more value than having him fold (and as Joose said he might shove his big stack on the flop to our raise).
I believe the biggest problem is point #3, if a diamond hits the turn. It puts us in a difficult position to play the rest of the hand, and it will likely force us to fold if villain plays it fast not giving us odds for a redraw. But keeping in mind that the chance of a clean diamond coming is 16%, I usually take this type of risk just about every time. The reward is a much bigger pot and probably villain's whole stack.
Am I totally wrong with all this? Is risk vs reward worth this type of play? Or not?