one for wrto (3/6 sh)

[Absolute 0]

this hand reminds me of wrto for some reason.i aint comfortable playin short handed tables at 5/10 yet.so im playin 4 handed, limits are 3/6.these games are usually real LAG, but this one is especially so.i get 44 on the button and the CO raises to me.SB is a callin station.BB is a maniac.Wut now?

[econ_tim 0]

Given descriptions of blinds, you probably can't iso 3-bet. (I don't even know if you would want to if blinds would always fold.) But sounds like you have implied odds to hit your set, so calling seems OK. I would be quick to abandon the 4s postflop, but I don't know SH from shinola.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

You couldn't isolate if you wanted to.Having 4 people see a 2 small bet flop isn't a bad thing with 44.I'd just call and be sneaky. Try to assassinate someone with a set of 4's.

[wrto4556 0]

fold...calling could be argued though

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

fold...calling could be argued though

Um, why? You're winning a 20 BB pot if it comes down AK4

[Jordan 1]

i been folding here too...with maniacs in the pot you are gonna have to hit a set...and i don't think we are getting odds to chase..but i'm not a math person.- Jordan

[KDawgCometh 2]

fold...calling could be argued though

which is what I was gonna do. I think this could be a good place to play our hand for both pair value, and implied odds on a set. given teh reads on the sb and BB, three betting is just asking for disaster. THe only thing that we would have going for us if we three bet is position, but we'd have to go to a showdown because we would really have a big ole pot. THis is a hand that I want to take a flop with here given the table conditions as we will get paid off real well each time we have the best hand

[MrNiceGuy 0]

fold...calling could be argued though

Fold, IMO. If you call, best case is everyone calls and you're getting 3-1 when you're 7.5-1 to flop a set. Assuming you'll almost never win the hand when you don't flop a set, and almost always win when you do, you still need to collect more than 4.5 BB on average postflop when you flop a set to make the call profitable. Maybe it's doable, but that's the best case.

[Chiggleslap 0]

fold...calling could be argued though

Fold, IMO. If you call, best case is everyone calls and you're getting 3-1 when you're 7.5-1 to flop a set. Assuming you'll almost never win the hand when you don't flop a set, and almost always win when you do, you still need to collect more than 4.5 BB on average postflop when you flop a set to make the call profitable. Maybe it's doable, but that's the best case.

It sounds like it's doable, and from my experience w/ 3/6 SH, it's definitely doable.Flopping a set isn't the only way to win w/ 44, either...

[econ_tim 0]

Flopping a set isn't the only way to win w/ 44, either...

There's always quads.

[wrto4556 0]

with a couple of lags in there with 44 i really dont think we can show it down often enough UI.

[MrNiceGuy 0]

Flopping a set isn't the only way to win w/ 44, either...

I know - but with three opponents, two of whom are lagging it up, I think you almost always need to flop a set.Other than the blinds both folding, I think both blinds calling is the best case scenario . Worst case is SB folds, BB 3-bets, CO caps. Now you're getting 4-2 on your money and are 7.5-1 to flop a set. Say you're 6-1 to win the hand (that's a pure guess). You'd have to average over 8 BB of postflop profit per win to show a profit in this worst case situation.

[KDawgCometh 2]

with a couple of lags in there with 44 i really dont think we can show it down often enough UI.

do you think we have enough in the way of implied odds to at least coldcall to try to hit either a set or draw?

[Chiggleslap 0]

Flopping a set isn't the only way to win w/ 44, either...

I know - but with three opponents, two of whom are lagging it up, I think you almost always need to flop a set.Other than the blinds both folding, I think both blinds calling is the best case scenario . Worst case is SB folds, BB 3-bets, CO caps. Now you're getting 4-2 on your money and are 7.5-1 to flop a set. Say you're 6-1 to win the hand (that's a pure guess). You'd have to average over 8 BB of postflop profit per win to show a profit in this worst case situation.

What I said was a half-joke.I meant you could flop an open-ended straight draw and probably get the right odds to make it.So yes, you pretty much always have to flop a set.

[Chiggleslap 0]

with a couple of lags in there with 44 i really dont think we can show it down often enough UI.

do you think we have enough in the way of implied odds to at least coldcall to try to hit either a set or draw?

It depends on how laggy these guys are, but, while I said that it's definitely doable to get enough bets to make this call correct, I honestly think it's really close between calling and folding. I definitely am folding here sometimes, even at a LAG table. I just don't like putting myself in a situation where I need to flop a set and I'm not sure that the implied odds are enough to call. It's one of those situations where you're really unsure whether it was correct or not to cold-call until you actually do it, flop your set, and see how much you make at the showdown. Not my favorite way to play poker.

[wrto4556 0]

with a couple of lags in there with 44 i really dont think we can show it down often enough UI.

do you think we have enough in the way of implied odds to at least coldcall to try to hit either a set or draw?

its close. But with the BB likely to 3-bet, i really dont think so.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

with a couple of lags in there with 44 i really dont think we can show it down often enough UI.

I just wanna have a massive implied odds hand AND position with 3 lags.

[Chiggleslap 0]

with a couple of lags in there with 44 i really dont think we can show it down often enough UI.

I just wanna have a massive implied odds hand AND position with 3 lags.

ditto.exactly what i was saying, only i used more words... i should work on that.