https://www.cardschat.com/replayer/124Lz1OIv

Hi there poker friends! And happy new year(in future LOL).

I'm trying these days to learn and apply the "implied odds" to my game. In that hand you'll see that I made 2 very loose (I know) calls Pre and post flop. But the both under the same reason: implied odds, I thought if I hit the flop and complete draws the pot would be so big to pay the odds and don't loose in the long run.

My main concern is in flop, because one V was to all in. I thought that he got set with a low pocket pair. Then, his hand wouldn't improve a lot in the next streets. So, that give free outs to my OESD and flush project. Also, the pot would be bigger if the other V also enter in the pot. I really didn't think that the V would be just a gambler and he would "deleting" outs for me (flush nut and blocking 1 A for the OESD).

Mixing all above I thought the very loose call would be the proper play.

What do you think?

I dont like the pre flop play personally but I think both moves could probably be justified if you are against opponents that will pay you off when they have hands like QQ+. I would have just folded in game to the first raise with second raise being closer for me to being a call but not sure how I would react if it happened in game.

On the flop I think you are making a mistake by calling. The opponent goes all in against us so now we have no fold equity which is what makes are jams with draws profitable. The player left to act will more than likely fold unless they have a better draw or a strong made hand. Either of those we would be behind to so we have to think of our pot odds as just against the initial jammer. The initial jammers range here will be usually just sets, nut flush draws and occasionally two pair. I think there are no bluffs in his range here over pairs probably would have 4 bet pre. With that said I think this is a bad call knowing you are going against an ace high flush draw or a set. Plus factor in if it is an ace high flush draw then one of your aces is removed for your potential straight.

I think the way you played this hand will be -EV over the long haul. Your plan of implied odds only really works when the SB comes along for the ride. When he checks after the flop he likely caps his range. What hands are likely to check on the flop after a pre-flop squeeze and two callers? Mostly junk.
When the CO ships it to me it becomes a simple task of calculating your pot odds against your equity. You need about 45% and as we can see you had 35%.
Low suited connector hands have more implied odds the deeper we are.
I think though very often 3s4s is hand that's very difficult to realize its equity and is going to have to be folded very often on the flop.
It's not very often you flop a flush draw with and open ended straight draw.

Santa Claus made you a gift for the holidays. Luck on the flop, luck on the turn, your chances only improved and improved from street to street. A significant moment happened already on the preflop. If you call on the button with any cards, then the players in the blinds can raise and force you to pay extra at an early stage of the hand. You are hooked on the flop, but the opponent has forced you to invest your entire stack. Even if you assume he has a set of nines or a top pair, you only have a draw and 15 outs. But as it turned out, your outs are much smaller. You're just willing to risk the entire stack for equal odds or a 35% chance of winning

Originally Posted by OmarRD7

https://www.cardschat.com/replayer/124Lz1OIv

Hi there poker friends! And happy new year(in future LOL).

I'm trying these days to learn and apply the "implied odds" to my game. In that hand you'll see that I made 2 very loose (I know) calls Pre and post flop. But the both under the same reason: implied odds, I thought if I hit the flop and complete draws the pot would be so big to pay the odds and don't loose in the long run.

My main concern is in flop, because one V was to all in. I thought that he got set with a low pocket pair. Then, his hand wouldn't improve a lot in the next streets. So, that give free outs to my OESD and flush project. Also, the pot would be bigger if the other V also enter in the pot. I really didn't think that the V would be just a gambler and he would "deleting" outs for me (flush nut and blocking 1 A for the OESD).

Mixing all above I thought the very loose call would be the proper play.

What do you think?

You call a shove,so or u have the odds to call or not,implied odds are when the vilain and you have money left,but your hand isnt strong enough to call,but you could imprue and get back the extra money you put in the pot in later streets.
You could ocationally call the OPR with that hand but i like to fold preflop,when some one squeeses and the original raiser calls you have good odds to call. On the flop you have a combo draw,OESD and FD so you dont need implied odd u have allmost 50% equity in there,worse hand you could find is the one he had, a draw that have you dominated, but vs over pair or vs sets u ar in a flip so u have the right odds to call any bet.

I agree with others on the hand. No need to beat a dead horse in that respect. I'd review your understanding of implied odds and take into account position and action behind. If you're closing the action in the BB and have some read in a single raised pot we can discuss implied odds. For that reason I don't like the first pre flop call, the second call IS closing the action in position with a disguised small suited connector that can make some big hands so it's a closer decision.

Clearly we do not want to call a nearly 3x overbet shove on the flop with 35% equity. It's a long term losing play and very -EV. Yet this looks like our dream flop, flush draw and open ended straight draw. At first glance a combo draw like this usually has more equity and I wonder if this is where the confusion lies.

The most interesting thing about this post and maybe it's late and I'm missing something and I'll feel silly when I read the responses but I'm actually surprised at how the rule of 2 or 4 breaks down in such epic fashion in this spot. We have 12 clean outs here against Vs exact hand. 3 Aces, 3 threes, 3 fours, 3 non spade sixes. We would think that 12 outs twice in an all in scenario would give us a better chance at winning the hand if we could see the cards and knew our flush was no good (48% estimate, 45% actual in most cases). In this case however that assumption is WAY off. I know we shouldn't be drawing to small pairs in general but someone please remind me why this estimation is so far off in this instance and what other scenarios may be similar.

This hand should fold preflop, rather than limp. The blinds are yet to be played. Even if they never defend the blinds, you need better form in your range. If you continue with 3-4s, you are playing with many marginal hands and this is an unbalanced game. Think that you are blocking hands like A2s-A5s; K2s-K5s; Q2s-Q5s and you should 3-bet with those hands to unbalance the middle structure of the V range. The first call is totally unnecessary. Later your calling range seems to improve a bit after 3-bet preflop, but this is not really the case, as you have no blockers in your range and therefore it is an expendable risk to take, in a 3WP.
Similarly, on the reversed flop, villain is always pushing with hands that have you dominated. He could have played slow pocket aces to suck you up on the flop. In general you should play better hands in micro stakes. As for the implied odds, they are not enough at any point in the game to justify these calls.
Greetings.

I wouldn't have called preflop because these cards just miss the flop too often and you just aren't the aggressor. Implied odds are not enough for you either. I would probably have made the second call that way because you really have a monster draw and you can't necessarily expect your opponent to have a nut flash draw.

Hi there, poker friends. Happy new year. Thanks for letting me know all your opinions with very detailed argument.


I have to review this and improve it. Thanks again for all your time!