Mailbag: Chasing a Gut Shot

Q: I have seen a french poker video in which 2 players discuss about a hand played by one of these player on a french online tournament (6max, buy in 100€).

This is the hand :
Blinds 250/500 ante 60.
Hero is the CO with AcTs.
utg folds.
utg +1 : folds.
CO (21 000):raises to 1000.
btn : folds.
SB: (53 000) : calls.
BB (34 000): calls.

pot: 3 180.

flop : QsJh4s

SB: bets 1400
BB: calls
CO : ?

All the debate is here. All we know about the SB and the BB is that they are categorized as fishs.
One commentator think the call can be EV+ and the other is not agree with that.
The two arguments for the call are :
1. SB shows some strength with his donk bet, the board hit his hand very often, so if the turn is a king (but not the spade one) the implied odds are huge and hero think he can stack off SB.
2. hero thinks that an ace on the turn can be a good out for him, because on a multiway pot, players play more tight and with the position hero can know very quickly if his ace is good.

The arguments for fold is :
With only 3 outs in front off 2 strong ranges it is not EV+ to call.

I think the fold is ok, but I think the arguments for the call are interesting, and I want to know if it is something that you think about when you have a decision to take in a multiway pot ?

A: Good question. This is actually a complicated situation for calculating implied odds on future streets, because there are so many possibilities. I’ll come back to all of that in a moment. In spots like this, I think it makes sense to start by looking at the scenario where you expect the bulk of your profit to come from. Once you figure out how close that gets you to profitability, then you can look at how much the more marginal situations will affect your equity, for better or worse.

In this case, we’re mostly banking on the implied odds of turning the nuts. Three cards – the non-spade kings – will do that for you. You have a roughly 6% chance of turning three outs, which means you need to get about 17:1 between immediate and implied odds to break-even on the call if you were simply to fold on any other turn card. Calling costs you 1400, so you’d need to average a return of 22,400 the times that you turn the nuts to make up for all the times you call, miss, and fold. Will you?

There’s just about 6000 in the pot, so that’s another 16,400 you need in implied odds. You’ll have 18,600 left in your stack after calling the flop, so you’d have to get all-in (and win – don’t forget that hands stacking off to you will likely be sets, two-pair, and flush draws that will have anywhere from 8% to 18% equity against your straight) more than 88% of the time to break-even if you were solely playing to make the nuts or fold.

That’s a high number, even against two suspected fish. We won’t be able to come up with an actual number with any accuracy, so let’s just keep in mind that we’ve got some equity to make up in other scenarios.

There are some other ways in which you stand to show a profit. Occasionally the turn will be a spade and your opponents will show sufficient weakness for you to steal the pot. Even if you don’t win an additional bet, you’ll win the pot relatively often on the Ks. You might get to see the river for free, doubling your chances of making the nuts without any additional investment. An A could give you the best hand and perhaps even another value bet.

Of course none of these scenarios is 100%. Sometimes an A or the Ks will actually cost you a bet. Anyone slowplaying a turned flush might induce you to bluff. You’re in position and, presumably, have a skill edge, though, so on balance these scenarios should shake out in your favor.

Again, it’s hard to estimate exactly how much these scenarios will improve your equity. Thus, we’re left the same dilemma. You have good implied odds, but almost certainly not enough to justify calling, based on the possibility of turning the nuts alone. There are some other ways you could pick up some equity, but it’s hard to say how much or whether it would be enough to make calling the flop show a profit.

In short, it’s a close decision, just as you and the video producers have already determined. In a tournament, especially with two weak players who cover me on my right, I’d rather fold than risk a significant percentage of my stack in a marginal spot.

I’d feel better about calling if we had a more clear plan for exploiting one or both of these players. If we were sure one of them had two-pair or would lose his ass with any pair, then I’d like calling for the better implied odds. Likewise if we could be sure neither had a flush draw and that we’d have very good bluffing opportunities if a spade fell, then I’d like calling for the bluff outs (which are really a kind of implied odds).

I’m skeptical of generic plans simply to “outplay” someone later, though, which is essentially what we’d be banking on by calling here. In a tournament where Hero seems to have an appreciable skill edge, I’d rather avoid trying to catch the fish in such murky waters. There will be more clearly profitable opportunities.

Do you have a question for the Thinking Poker Mailbag? Please leave it as a comment below!