|
|
#1
08-08-2005, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Does this argument make any sense?
Was playing online on Party and had one guy who was raising crazy hands pre-flop.
He would also call what looked like big bets with 3 or 4 outs and seemed to be hitting a lot. Obviously we didn't get too see every hand as he would fold if he hadn't hit by the river. I didn't see him showdown even one bluff. This was his argument (I stayed out of it): [ QUOTE ] Player1: always chasing draws THE MANIAC: lol and you give them for free Player1: give them for free? Player1: i bet about 70% of the pot THE MANIAC: yeah Player2: hes a fish hell call with anything THE MANIAC: exactly... you need at least a pot bet for me to fold Player1: lol THE MANIAC: if i have more thn 3 outs i call Player2: yeah right Player1: 3 outs on the flop is 12% to hit Player1: why call? THE MANIAC: because i win 12% of them Player1: but you lose 86% of them Player2: lol THE MANIAC: and bet you out 80% of them because you think i have hit Player1: you seem to hit every flop THE MANIAC: nah i dont you just think i have hit it [/ QUOTE ] Does this make any sense? He built up a nice stack though he then lost a large bit in 2 consecutive hands (2 pair vs flopped str that turned flush - and KK v AA). 
|
|
#2
08-08-2005, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does this argument make any sense?
I'm not sure what you're asking. He's saying that he doesn't need a hand to win the pot and he uses position to sense weakness, from what I can gather. I assume you have a question related to probability but I'll be damned if I can find it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].
|
|
#3
08-08-2005, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does this argument make any sense?
[ QUOTE ]
Was playing online on Party and had one guy who was raising crazy hands pre-flop. He would also call what looked like big bets with 3 or 4 outs and seemed to be hitting a lot. Obviously we didn't get too see every hand as he would fold if he hadn't hit by the river. I didn't see him showdown even one bluff. This was his argument (I stayed out of it): [ QUOTE ] Player1: always chasing draws THE MANIAC: lol and you give them for free Player1: give them for free? Player1: i bet about 70% of the pot THE MANIAC: yeah Player2: hes a fish hell call with anything THE MANIAC: exactly... you need at least a pot bet for me to fold Player1: lol THE MANIAC: if i have more thn 3 outs i call Player2: yeah right Player1: 3 outs on the flop is 12% to hit Player1: why call? THE MANIAC: because i win 12% of them Player1: but you lose 86% of them Player2: lol THE MANIAC: and bet you out 80% of them because you think i have hit Player1: you seem to hit every flop THE MANIAC: nah i dont you just think i have hit it [/ QUOTE ] Does this make any sense? [/ QUOTE ] If you really let him win the pot with a turn bet 80% of the time, yes. If he makes a pot-sized bet on the turn, then he's investing at most 3 times the flop pot size to win 1 flop pot size, which must work at least 75% of the time, and he says it works 80% of the time, in addition to the times you call and he hits.
|
|
#4
08-08-2005, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does this argument make any sense?
[ QUOTE ]
If you really let him win the pot with a turn bet 80% of the time, yes. If he makes a pot-sized bet on the turn, then he's investing at most 3 times the flop pot size to win 1 flop pot size, which must work at least 75% of the time, and he says it works 80% of the time, in addition to the times you call and he hits. [/ QUOTE ] Thing was that he was getting called many, many times on the turn and only let the hand go on the river when he missed. He would make another pot-sized bet or raise a bettor if he had hit and would generally get a call. He did lose some of the hands on the showdown but not many and I didn't see him go to any showdown with nothing.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
