I'm new to this forum and would like to ask a question regarding a hand which caused much discussion at our club last night. I apologise if it seems rather basic, but no consensus was reached, so any answers from other posters here will probably add to the discussion!
Game: low-stakes no-limit cash hold-em (NOT tournament). Minimum entry 200 euros, max 1000.
Player 3 (small stack) goes all-in with 49 euros. Player 5 (medium stack with 410 euros) calls. Big blind (also small stack) goes all-in with 50 euros, 5 adds a euro to complete his call. The other players have folded.
The board is dealt and is rainbow, so no flush possible. Also, no straight emerges.
Hands: BB has AK offsuit, 3 has pair of queens, 5 has AJ suited. The board shows a queen on the turn, so player 3 wins.
Subsequent discussion is at two 'levels', the first of which is mainly opinon, but leads to the second, which is mathematical. But revolves around one basic question: was player 5 'wise' to have called with his suited AJ? (Opinions here welcomed!)
But then the maths. Player 5 claims his odds (although not the best) were reasonable to win, based on his overcard and his two cards being suited. Big blind says that the odds were greater of pairing either his ace or his king than those of Player 3 completing his set. Player 3 (who's won) disagrees with both of them!
What do you think? Should player 5 have called? Would you have called in such a context, given the superior stack size? (Ignore the possibility of other players deciding to participate in the hand: or don't, if you wish!)
Any views on this (preferably with a mathematical explanation, though keep it simple, please!) eagerly awaited, and thanks in advance.