Gutshot + flush draw on the turn

I think that it will be a slightly losing call in the long run. We need 27% of equity to call. I think even this might be a bit optimistic because he doesn't have all AQ in his range:

Board: 7♦6♦Q♣ 9♠
       Equity     Win     Tie
BU     26.23%  26.23%   0.00% { KdJd }
SB     73.77%  73.77%   0.00% { QQ+, 99, 77-66, AQs, AdKd, AdJd, Ad5d, Ad4d, Ad3d, Ad2d, AQo }

So it's a fold for me.

We can xb turn and see the river.
As played, this is a fold.

Without using a calculator it looks quite close. So I don't blame you for calling. Alleen calculated it and confirmed that it might be slightly losing call, but that depends on villains range a bit too. So you didn't make a bad mistake.

I think you can check behind OTT but betting is also good imo.

Yep, it is an easy fold on the turn. Also, I don't like your call PF - just note your villain 3b you with what sizing? 4X! WTF
His line is pretty strong 3b=> CB 3/4 => X - SHOVE. He still could have AA,KK,QQ and your flush draw is not nut FD. FOLD vs R OTT.

I calculated it as well, given villain this range OTT (QQ,99,T8s,97s+,76s). As alleen said, it´s slightly losing, I´d fold. Anyway, the bet OTT I see as a mistake, we don´t really represent much there, I´d just check back.

The pot is already at 7.78 when he jammed, I need another 2.56 to call giving my pot odds at 2.56/7.78 = 0.33. Since 0.33 is greater than 0.27, does it not mean that we should call as the odds we are getting from the pot are bigger than the card odds?

Originally posted by Titicamara
The pot is already at 7.78 when he jammed, I need another 2.56 to call giving my pot odds at 2.56/7.78 = 0.33. Since 0.33 is greater than 0.27, does it not mean that we should call as the odds we are getting from the pot are bigger than the card odds?

I didn't realize that he has a bit bigger stack than we, but our pot odds are then 2,56/(2,56+7,78), which is like 25. It's stil close imo, folding probably better.

I like betting the turn, btw. He will have alot if Ax hands which will fold and are better than our K-high.

Originally posted by Titicamara
The pot is already at 7.78 when he jammed, I need another 2.56 to call giving my pot odds at 2.56/7.78 = 0.33. Since 0.33 is greater than 0.27, does it not mean that we should call as the odds we are getting from the pot are bigger than the card odds?

I see a little misunderstanding, or then my brain is not working cause I just woke up.. The formula to calculate your own pot odds is bet/(pot+bet), sine villain has a bigger stack than you, the effective pot will be 6.26 not 7.78..
So it is 2.56/(6.26+2.56)=29%. This number is how much equity you need to call. So when this number is higher than the equity you actually have, you fold.

I agree with la55i about the pot odds calculation in general but also here when the SHOVE of villain exceeds our own stack. So if we would call the difference between our bet 123 and 408 you would get an additional call of 285. However, we are the shortest effective stack, so we can only call the amount we have left behind which after our 123 bet is 256 but 123 +256 = 379 and not 408 (amount villain is shoving).

Alleen86 you have to ADD your bet to the existing pot (which is most of the time pot going into the street plus bet of villain on top of that) in order to calculate proper odds. For example, you go into the river and the pot is 5. Villain bets pot so another 5 (now the pot is 10) and you now have to consider calling 5 to win the total pot of 10+5= 15. Odds are 5/15 = 0.33 which equals 33.3%. This number has been verified over and over btw, in order to call a potsized bet, as the caller, you need 33.3% equity.

Originally posted by Titicamara
The pot is already at 7.78 when he jammed, I need another 2.56 to call giving my pot odds at 2.56/7.78 = 0.33. Since 0.33 is greater than 0.27, does it not mean that we should call as the odds we are getting from the pot are bigger than the card odds?

Originally posted by la55i

Originally posted by Titicamara
The pot is already at 7.78 when he jammed, I need another 2.56 to call giving my pot odds at 2.56/7.78 = 0.33. Since 0.33 is greater than 0.27, does it not mean that we should call as the odds we are getting from the pot are bigger than the card odds?

I see a little misunderstanding, or then my brain is not working cause I just woke up.. The formula to calculate your own pot odds is bet/(pot+bet), sine villain has a bigger stack than you, the effective pot will be 6.26 not 7.78..
So it is 2.56/(6.26+2.56)=29%. This number is how much equity you need to call. So when this number is higher than the equity you actually have, you fold.

It is imperative to get the notions right.

Pot odds are defined as (current pot)/(cost to call):1. In this case, it is 7.49/2.56:1 = 2.93:1. In words, pot odds are a little bit worse than three to one. The "pronounced version" explains the "(:1)" in the definition.

(Note that villain has $0.29 more than us in his stack, so that sum has been deducted from the actual pot, since it isn't winnable.)

The minimum required equity to call is defined as cost to call/(current pot + cost to call)*100%. In this case it evaluates to 2.56/(7.49 + 2.56)*100% = 25.5%. (It is customary to use percentages.)

/**/

The above notions are different, not the same. (They are related though, and calculable from each other.) Since so many reading these forums are struggling with the basics, it is highly desirable to keep these notion straight. They should be seen as part o standard poker vocabulary.

Which notion should one use?

Undoubtedly pot odds when at the table. It is easier to calculate, and easier to draw conclusions from.

The other number is more useful in a forum discussion, since this is the number Equilab will produce for you when you give your guess of villain's range.

I see that I actually was too tired ♦ I calculated the pot size incorrectly.

What comes to the odds and required equity, I probably often use the wrong term. For me it is the same. I always use %. Odds can be converted to %. If someone tells me that we need certain odds I always convert that to % to understand it better. That is why I often make a mistake and use the terms incorrectly.

Well, you are not alone:) I hate myself (or anyone) whenever I am a so-called besser-wisser. But this time I actually insist for the benefit of the beginners reading advice from those of use posting regularly here. They'll get utterly confused.