This hand came down halfway through day two of the $5,000 pot-limit Omaha (with rebuys)
World Series of Poker event at the Rio recently. I started the hand with about $55,000 and my two opponents had me covered with about $60,000 each. The blinds were $1,000-$2,000 and I limped in from late position with the A
J
9
9
. The button limped, and we were threehanded with the big blind after the small blind mucked.
The flop of K
Q
10
gave me the nuts, so when the big blind checked, I bet $5,000. The button called, then the big blind made it $25,000 to go. If this were hold'em, I may have had an orgasm right then, but this was pot-limit Omaha. After studying for about a minute, I reluctantly folded my hand with a slight whimper.
First off, let's address all of the questions that I know you're all thinking right now. No, I wasn't drunk. No, I wasn't playing partners with the guy who raised. And no, since it was live and not online, I didn't accidentally click the fold button. So, what happened?
Well, let's look a little closer at this hand. What can my opponents have? The check-raiser almost certainly has to have the nuts along with me - quite possibly with a freeroll such as a set, a four-flush, two pair, a backdoor-flush draw, or even one pair. I had a pair, too, and it's not too significant, but it's a small freeroll to keep in mind.
Even if he had only the nuts without a redraw, I still had another opponent to deal with. Once I reraise all in (calling wasn't an option), he suddenly is getting laid more than 2-1 on his hand (after the original raiser also went all in). This would make both a flush draw and a set a correct call.
If he had a flush draw, he would be only 38.5 percent to win the pot. If he had a pair and a gutshot-straight draw to go with it, which he probably would, as he would need to have the nut-flush draw to call all in (otherwise, he probably would be drawing dead), add another 1.5 percent, bringing him up to almost 40 percent. If he had a set, he would be in similar shape at about 39.5 percent. The same principle as the flush draw would apply here; he would need top set to like his hand here, because if he had middle or bottom set, he may be up against top set and have only one out in the deck. Also, with middle or bottom set, one of his opponents might have top two pair or top and bottom pair along with the straight, taking away four of his outs.
So, from all of this, we can see that it would have been correct for the third player to call with either a set or the nut-flush draw here. My all in would have sucked him into a major pot, to which he would have had an overlay. Even though I held the nuts, my hand had a negative expectation if the third player made the call (assuming that he wasn't Eli Elezra, or an equally brain-dead player).
I would split the pot about 60 percent of the time, and scoop only about 3.5 percent of the time if the third player had a flush draw and the original raiser didn't have a pair with his straight. A scoop would have been impossible if the third player held a set. These percentages just don't give me the equity that I needed to play my hand.
Telling a poker player to throw his hand away after flopping the nuts is like telling a mother bear to attack her own cubs. It doesn't come naturally (to say the least)! I hope this column makes a point and helps those who aren't aware of this concept to understand this mad logic a little better.
