Re: Hm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
misa gots lotsa to learn for 6-max [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


aaaaaaaiiiiiiieeeeeeeeee! Jar Jar Binks reference! My eyes...my eyes are bleeding!

Re: Hm.
 

I don't have aggression by street up on my HUD but given that he is very passive until river and gets crazy I would check through. Then again I got donkbet c/r today I was so pissed. I like your reasoning for just calling the turn, but can you explain not wanting to get 3-bet when you have outs in more detail?

Re: Hm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have aggression by street up on my HUD but given that he is very passive until river and gets crazy I would check through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, but I dunno. Fearing goofy river play is pretty bad if it scares you into not value betting.

[ QUOTE ]
...but can you explain not wanting to get 3-bet when you have outs in more detail?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the best on explaining this concept. I just sorta understand it intuitively (like most things in poker). I'll do my best though.

If we raise for value and get 3-bet, then we are most certainly behind. We'd rather not pay more for our draw here, because if we miss on the river, we have to fold. Furthermore, calling on the turn and river costs the same as raising and calling a 3-bet and folding the river, but it gets us to showdown.

I know that wasn't the best explanation. It's basically a iteration of "check with outs", so maybe you can bridge the gap yourself.

Re: Hm.
 

id really prefer this line if it were heads up. having another villain makes this tricky dont you think?

Re: Hm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
id really prefer this line if it were heads up. having another villain makes this tricky dont you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definetly. But UTG folds so much on the river, I'm not concerned with him until he does something.