Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

I don't really see what is wrong with it. This is not a perfect flop to bet on, it's actually a pretty bad one-- there are two big cards out there and a spade draw. It is pretty unlikely both opponents have cards that could not possibly be helped by this flop. There are a lot of hands that would peel a card for a gutshot or have a pair already and aren't folding. I would be amazed if he bet this flop and both opponents folded-- more likely he is going to get called in one or two spots or, if he has been following through with a flop bet a lot, he is going to get check raised. I think he saw this flop, decided that he wasn't going to walk into a check raise and checked behind. Then when his opponents checked to him again, he figured that they actually didn't have anything and bet. Makes sense to me.

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

This hand seems similar to this Tommy Angelo hand BK posted eariler.... click me

FWIW, I don't have a solid opinion on the line as I'm currently thinking of places that it is optimal to be more passive than common conviention.

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

[ QUOTE ]
He clicks "show" and gives off his bluff...


...but i can't see why he didn't bet that flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he bluffs like a pussssee. As it is, its a pretty retarded hand. Bet the flop. Anybody bets the turn hes folding...or bluff raising if thats his flavor.

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

The only thing I can see is that this is multiway and it's connected, and an ostensibly blank turn will force a weak ace or king to choose between calling down in a very small pot and expecting seif's odd play to be suspiciously strange to push a fold when they'd both likely call down if he bets the flop. The SB can be likely to have hit the board, even if he is too loose.

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

[ QUOTE ]
This hand seems similar to this Tommy Angelo hand BK posted eariler.... click me

FWIW, I don't have a solid opinion on the line as I'm currently thinking of places that it is optimal to be more passive than common conviention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took what is probably considered an unconventional line here and got the idea of trying it from Tommy's hand.

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

The only possible line here if he was thinking is if he knew his opponents would nearly always bet with a A or K and might bet at the turn but would fold to a raise - so he wasn't hoping for c,c,c; c,c,b,f,f - he was hoping for c,c,c; b,c/c,b, r,f and the actual action was indicative of him failing to get an extra bet out of the situation.

But you'd have to know your opponents to try this parlay and if the elements aren't there it isn't a particularly good line unless you just figure check,check means they missed and you can use this opportunity to mix up your game/image without having too much to worry about losing bets.

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

Also, if he's showing his bluff that seems to either mean he wants to change/maintain an image with a very odd play - I think whether he'd been running hot or cold, showing down a lot of hands or few hands, would have to be known to try to explain away showing his cards. Still, I'm believing more and more that it's worse to try to create an image than to try to identify the one you have.

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

http://www.edhelms.net/pics/TDSstills/ed586.jpg

Its because he is a puuu-uuuh-saaay. Pussaaaay. He's a pussy, Jon, I cant say it any more clearer than that." -Ed helms

Re: 87s UTG (mark seif)
 

I've used this line against the semi-thinking weak tight opponents in the stars 2/4 before.

It really depends on how the last several dozen hands have been going though.