Top set vs likely straights OTT

Title I understand (a little bit), content not so much

Board will not pair 26% of the time. You have 10 outs, which is about 20% by the rule of 2 and 4, or 21.7% specifically

For simplicity's sake, we'll say that if you hit you win (no lower sets that can turn into quads) both the main and the side. The pot is therefore 350 from V1, 650 from V2, 650 from you, and an implied 400 for the HH. Again, we'll simplify and say if you hit, you'll always win it, and that the small amount already in the pot goes to rake/tip. So the total is $2,050. Your $650 is over 31% of that amount. You are not close.

Also, please don't reveal results in your thread title or OP. I edited them out. Wait at least 24 hours after posting or until discussion dies down, whichever comes later. I edited them out.

This is a pot odds question so having the exact size of the pot on the turn is helpful. That said, it's a fold either way.

You have to call $650 to win a final pot of $1650 plus whatever is in the pot plus whatever your high hand equity is.

Assuming there is $50 in the pot and you have a 100% chance of winning the high hand with Aces Full, the final pot would be $2100.

$650/$2100 = .309, so you would need 31% equity to profitably call off here.

You could have as little as 19% chance to scoop here, since your opponents are likely blocking your outs with hands like KT and JT. You have a small chance to chop on a T as well.

Edit: Garick beat me to it, same conclusion.

You don't have odds against a straight. You can only call if there is some change they both don't have straights, which would be terrible play by them.

Free, it's always been the case in the strat forums that results are omitted in the initial post. The interest for us is in the strategy questions the post contains, and potential answers to those questions. Results bias our answers, even if we try not to.

You've been here long enough to know that, so I'm not understanding your ire here. There's certainly no malice behind Garick's actions, nor in most posters' responses to threads.

I didn't change your thoughts, I just edited out the line where you gave the results. Results bias discussion. The original thread title also hinted at the results and was lacking description. Please read the posting tips and rules, particularly the "starting a thread" portion. If you feel these items had some implied question in them, please go ahead and specify it.

Generally speaking, you are often very sure you are right and argumentative with folks who point out issues with the way you play hands, so if you don't like being critiqued, perhaps posting hands for feedback is not something that will add value for you. That said, I would recommend some humility, because poker is, in fact, a game of objective math, even NLHE which is also a game of imperfect information and of psychology. For example, your comment in the OP about the board pairing 26% of the time is objectively incorrect. IDK where you got that idea, but it's not close.

Similarly, in this hand, there is a simple mathematical answer about whether it could be a "good gamble." It is objectively a positive, neutral, or negative EV situation. There may be some times when there are meta-game reasons to take neutral or minorly negative EV spots for image reasons, or if it would make your opponents tilt, but 1) you didn't ask those questions and 2) this is not minorly -EV. It is pretty massively -EV. If it were close, we could debate the meta, but it is an average loss of about $200 to call in this exact scenario. Even if your idea of 26% equity had been correct, it would still be -EV to the tune of losing about $100 on average.

This title doesn't hint at results. It is perfectly obvious they are likely to have straights.

Yeah, this is the title I changed it to, and I agree that this is almost certain. I don't remember the original title, but I remember that it spoiled Hero's turn action

Yeah, the call loses over $200 if the player allin over the top has a straight. If he doesn't have a straight and the first player does, it may be profitable. If both player don't have straights, it is very EV+. Just either of those things happen so rarely that a call is probably really bad.

O I thought the rough drafts would be edited out

Please understand this was never my intention & really one of the most foolish exercises I’ve been put thru in a long time. My post was broken into this question:

Should you fold? Of course you should fold.
It’s an obvious fold, always was an obvious fold - some people (including g) are writing entire paragraphs about the mathematical reality that you should fold here. I know it’s a fold. We all know it’s a fold,

PLEASE DO NOT THINK THIS WAS EVER MY QUESTION!
Like most everyone on planet earth, I know the answer. So why are we wasting time on an obvious question? AND

That
Had
Nothing
To
Do
With
My
Post

just saying

Well, this is a strategy forum, so if that isn't your question, you have no valid question on the hand and the post was just BBV. Also, you might have wanted to actually put your question in the post (if you actually had one) rather than the ones you did. While you were at it, you might have wanted to include some note like "I know that mathematically this is a fold" to keep people from answering that part. Instead you asked the question "would you call?" And you're surprised that you're getting answers that say no and explain why not?

As for your complaining about modding, just stop. If you can't post in accordance with the forum rules, that is a you problem, not a me problem.

Again, I edited none of your sentences with a question mark. Your questions were:
"Would you call?" No
"What am I missing?" Basic pot odds, including what the actual equity of 10 outs OTT.
"Could it be a good gamble?" No.

Adding back the brag that you made this horrible call and got lucky does not change any of that.

Stop moving the goalposts whenever someone points out that you are wrong. Accept that you have things to learn, rather than trying to "win" all your threads. Or stop posting, if that hurts your ego too much. But if you keep posting in this combative manner, you will not only stop getting useful answers, you will end up getting more mod actions.

I don’t want conflict or ‘mod actions’ but you made a mistake. I had a question about gambling & you made me look like I don’t understand math.

It’s pretty muddied up now

I will be much more careful if I post again, not to assume that some things are obvious.