Etric
12-26-2004, 10:56 PM
I hope this is the right forum for my question.
Recently I was playing 2-4 at Party Poker. I had QQ in the BB, someone in MP raised, I reraised and they capped. This person had been playing well preflop, but had been calling down to the river with middle pairs/medium pocket pairs. I figured he had AA, KK, QQ, AKs, or AK. Flop was ragged, I checked and he bet. Turn and river were both undercards and I check/called down. He showed me AA and took the pot. Should I have folded at any point?
I've been reading TOP and it mentions a NL example where someone has QQ vs someone who may have AA, KK, or AK and the odds are 4-3 in favor of the opponent having AK, but TOP states that you lose too much the 3/7 of the time that your opponent has AA or KK that the times he has 4/7 you do not make enough to compensate. Is this just a nuance of NL play or does the same principle apply in limit?
Recently I was playing 2-4 at Party Poker. I had QQ in the BB, someone in MP raised, I reraised and they capped. This person had been playing well preflop, but had been calling down to the river with middle pairs/medium pocket pairs. I figured he had AA, KK, QQ, AKs, or AK. Flop was ragged, I checked and he bet. Turn and river were both undercards and I check/called down. He showed me AA and took the pot. Should I have folded at any point?
I've been reading TOP and it mentions a NL example where someone has QQ vs someone who may have AA, KK, or AK and the odds are 4-3 in favor of the opponent having AK, but TOP states that you lose too much the 3/7 of the time that your opponent has AA or KK that the times he has 4/7 you do not make enough to compensate. Is this just a nuance of NL play or does the same principle apply in limit?