Originally Posted by ChuckTs
I think folding is easily the weakest option.
Yeah you're probably right, the weakest option is folding but still I don't think it's terribly wrong. In a cash game context, like we have here, you can obviously rebuy and if you decide to play PLO the bottom line is that you can't run away every time you're faced with situations like this one. Consequently folding isn't the greatest play, but I don't completely hate it. There is another consideration I want to add as to the why I don't hate it.
With the kind of hand we have here our only hope to win is to catch one of the 13 outs to the nuts, if not we lose. That being the case, we really have no advantage in having a side pot with Rupert. If the 1st villain wasn't shortstacked and had $10, then definitely folding is out of question and you have to shove, for both FE and pot odds
considerations. This is not to say that we should fold just because 3rd villain is shortstacked, but it wouldn't be absolutely wrong to do so since our reward would increase making our odds even better if indeed he had $10 ($30 pot as opposed to $24).
The thing to keep in mind is that, if we put Rupert on a set, he is almost a 2 to 1 favored on us and more than 50% of our stack is invested in a side pot with him. Of course when you figure your odds you look (correctly) at the whole pot and I can't say our pot odds are terrible. But the fact that 3rd villain is shortstacked thus creating a side pot makes our return smaller and there is no advantage for us in that, because we don't have a made hand that we're hoping that holds up, we either hit 4th/5th street and win with the nuts, or we lose. I hope that wasn't confusing.
All I'm trying to do is make a case for folding. I'm not arguing that it's the best play but I don't believe it's horrible. As I posted before, I really think anyway you go here it can't be criticized.