Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What was he talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned in my OP, I had raised several flops preciously (against an OOP lead bet) and gotten folds. So I didn't think I could represent much with a flop raise, and I didn't want him to call or reraise me off the best hand. So I called trying to represent a slowplayed overpair or flush draw + overcards (AK-AJs etc). I was planning on raising any turn card if he bet less than the pot. I probably should have made it 25, but 22 seemed just enough to get this guy to fold his better pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about...
 

i love the flop call. thats pretty standard i think but when i make that call i'm usually looking for him to check the turn or at least puss out on his bet. at this level, even when soembody is worried about the flush, i don't think their actions reflect this worry often enough to play that flush card as hard as you did.

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

[ QUOTE ]
but i haven't had any success w/ it at this level so far...

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree its a good concept to have in your arsenal or in your mind at least but i think this part about not working at this level is the crucial thing.

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about...
 

This is fine if you were playing slightly higher limits. At this level it's rare to see people thinking about other players cards. The other minor problem is, if he is slightly TAG, although those numbers don't really reflect that, then why would he be betting into the pre-flop raiser with a draw on board ESPECIALLY when you've been aggresive this session? Either he's not very observant at all, or he actually caught this board or has over. That being the case, good luck getting people to fold at this level.

I like the thinking though, just don't know how much it will really apply and turn into +EV at this level. Try it at 400nl+

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is fine if you were playing slightly higher limits. At this level it's rare to see people thinking about other players cards. The other minor problem is, if he is slightly TAG, although those numbers don't really reflect that, then why would he be betting into the pre-flop raiser with a draw on board ESPECIALLY when you've been aggresive this session? Either he's not very observant at all, or he actually caught this board or has over. That being the case, good luck getting people to fold at this level.

I like the thinking though, just don't know how much it will really apply and turn into +EV at this level. Try it at 400nl+

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my description of the player... BTW, I was not counting on him thinking about my hand, only that he was ONLY thinking about his own hand. And what do you mean 30/10 doesn't reflect TAG? The stats mean very little in this hand.

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is fine if you were playing slightly higher limits. At this level it's rare to see people thinking about other players cards. The other minor problem is, if he is slightly TAG, although those numbers don't really reflect that, then why would he be betting into the pre-flop raiser with a draw on board ESPECIALLY when you've been aggresive this session? Either he's not very observant at all, or he actually caught this board or has over. That being the case, good luck getting people to fold at this level.

I like the thinking though, just don't know how much it will really apply and turn into +EV at this level. Try it at 400nl+

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my description of the player... BTW, I was not counting on him thinking about my hand, only that he was ONLY thinking about his own hand. And what do you mean 30/10 doesn't reflect TAG? The stats mean very little in this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean this...? "Villain is 31/11 and tagish postflop (for this level atleast)". That's not really much of a description, other than I know he's not a complete donk, and there's definately no read here. I'm evaluating based on the info you offered.

So you basically just think he has two overs and is betting into you despite the image you offered of yourself here. Ok, if you say so... I think you'd be better off if he WAS thinking about the possibilities you hold here because basically you're only beating a bluff or a very small pocket pair.

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

[ QUOTE ]
basically you're only beating a bluff or a very small pocket pair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter so much what I'm beating. Do you expect him to routinely call my raise and my river bluff?

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
basically you're only beating a bluff or a very small pocket pair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter so much what I'm beating. Do you expect him to routinely call my raise and my river bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been playing with villian, so I don't know. You didn't offer a read, but you offered how you've been playing. Based on the level you're playing and your offered image, I don't like the play. If you've been playing tight, I love it. But what you're saying here makes hardly any sense. On one hand you don't want villian to think about your hand, but at the same time you expect him to fold to your weak hand. Does that really make sense to you?

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
basically you're only beating a bluff or a very small pocket pair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter so much what I'm beating. Do you expect him to routinely call my raise and my river bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been playing with villian, so I don't know. You didn't offer a read, but you offered how you've been playing. Based on the level you're playing and your offered image, I don't like the play. If you've been playing tight, I love it. But what you're saying here makes hardly any sense. On one hand you don't want villian to think about your hand, but at the same time you expect him to fold to your weak hand. Does that really make sense to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is, what range of hands is villain willing to play for his whole stack with? Most "slightly tag" players aren't going nuts here with AJ or TT are they?

Re: I finally (sort of) understand was Fimbulwinter was talking about.
 

if he has adjusted at all to your play yes i do. given the level i do not expect him to adjust except to say he may look at his hand and say i have AJ and i am not folding. essentially, i am saying (as is freakdaddy) you make money at this limit by betting/raising for value, not trying to move someone off top pair. i like the way u are thinking, but it is not optimal for the level of play. u really should be playing ur cards at this level, especially if u are multitabling.