Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
check out SCSFAP's advice on river play

[/ QUOTE ]

From memory the river advice is very confusing. It is confusing because it advotaces several different things depending on what you have and what you think you're opponent would do with his potential holdings.

Bet out with Aces up to get a call from Ks up
Check raise with bare Aces to fold Ks up

etc etc That paragraph has too many if statements.

Re: RESULTS
 

I've yet to play in a game that any of the advice mattered because peoplw who fold on the river were going to fold anyway because they didn't hit their 2pair. I've yet to see anyone laydown something like 2pair even vs an obvious flush. If there are weak tighties on the river I've yet to see them.

Re: RESULTS
 

Very true, I don't think I know if I've seen anyone fold Ks up or better on the river when there was only 1 person to beat.

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
etc etc That paragraph has too many if statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what poker is all about. The paragraph is possibly the most amazing analysis I've ever read in a poker book.

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
etc etc That paragraph has too many if statements.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that's more an issue with the game and it's infinite number of river scenarios to be discussed than the chapter itself? I mean, you could probably right a ton on river play alone and I think they were just trying to get you to think in the right manner, about the right type of things and scenarios.

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I know if I've seen anyone fold Ks up or better on the river when there was only 1 person to beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I admit this is not a likely occurrence. But, honestly, how would you "know" if someone did this? You think they're going to talk about their big laydown after the fact or show it?

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

The hand histories? I know quite a few sites show the losing hand and quite a few of those don't randomize the downcards.

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
The hand histories? I know quite a few sites show the losing hand and quite a few of those don't randomize the downcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway I just wanted to add that I just started learning stud in the recent past after being a fairly proficient LHE/NLHE player. I found most of 7csfap pretty basic and uninteresting. The section on river play was by far the most though provoking part of the book. I was sad while reading it because I knew it would be a long time before if I could ever get someone to fold the better hand on the river, but the idea is pretty sexy. I'm at work right now but I think there was a section about multiway rivers and I thought a lot of that stuff can be applied in the game I play at 3/6-/6/12

Re: RESULTS
 

Hand histories don't show a hand that was FOLDED. So of course, you will never see for sure if someone actually mucked a surprising hand to a river checkraise. Not saying this happens often, but still...

Also, I think it's pretty clear that I wasn't suggesting a checkraise would work in an Internet game - people are much more hesitant to make big laydowns online than they are live in my experience, but I think a play like this can work in the right spots live. Of course, most of the time, you are going to be called and feel foolish, but selective use of this play CAN be profitable (not saying it would be here, it was an idea).

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
I found most of 7csfap pretty basic and uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thoroughly disagree - I find the book very comprehensive and many of the concepts were (and still are) eye opening to me. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I don't FULLY grasp everything in that book and reread it often. If it is so basic for you, I suggest moving up pronto - you are probably more of a natural stud player than me and should crush the bigger games.

Jeff