Re: 100/200 blind war
 

"By checking the river I think it would sure looks to villian like A or K high that will check call, so he's gonna value pretty much any pair."

youre right. now that you mention it, checkraise/fold the river is a much better play.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

Brilliant.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
if u check, it looks like you are prob calling, so i dont expect him to bluff here and i think youre a pretty big fav here to have the best hand, so i like betting and absolutely call a raise... checking just lets him check behind w/ a baby pair or Ahigh and i almost think a busted str8 is more likely to raise ruiver than bet if check to.
i say bet/call.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

I'm serious, I think checkraising is awesome. Sometimes he'll fold a better hand, and sometimes he'll call with a worse one.

I don't think he will ever 3 bet a worse one.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

Barron, if you are going to make assumptions like these, then you don't have to write out complicated mathematically formulas, the answer is painfully obvious.

Look, you assume

- he'll bet all hands he would have called with
- we cannot fold to a raise
- he always raises when he beats us
- he never raises a worse hand

Yea, no [censored]. Of course if you assume this stuff, then check call is the way to go. It's pretty obvious. The math doesn't add any weight to the argument, since the whole argument is about whether or not your assumptions are valid.

In fact though, a number of your assumptions are suspect. First of all, it makes no sense to assume that he will never raise a worse hand AND that we cannot fold to a raise.

Further, you have ignored all possibility that he has a 2 or an ace.

Personally, I'd bet because my hand is near the top of my range in quality. I expect him to call with a wide range of hands but I'd be concerned that he won't necessarily bet these hands. I'd call a raise for the same reason, because I don't have to hace a hand when I get here, so I call all the times that I do.

I do agree that if we can count on him to value bet the river aggressivley, then check-call starts to look nice.

good luck.
Eric

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
Barron, if you are going to make assumptions like these, then you don't have to write out complicated mathematically formulas, the answer is painfully obvious.

Look, you assume

- he'll bet all hands he would have called with
- we cannot fold to a raise
- he always raises when he beats us
- he never raises a worse hand

Yea, no [censored]. Of course if you assume this stuff, then check call is the way to go. It's pretty obvious. The math doesn't add any weight to the argument, since the whole argument is about whether or not your assumptions are valid.

In fact though, a number of your assumptions are suspect. First of all, it makes no sense to assume that he will never raise a worse hand AND that we cannot fold to a raise.

Further, you have ignored all possibility that he has a 2 or an ace.

Personally, I'd bet because my hand is near the top of my range in quality. I expect him to call with a wide range of hands but I'd be concerned that he won't necessarily bet these hands. I'd call a raise for the same reason, because I don't have to hace a hand when I get here, so I call all the times that I do.

I do agree that if we can count on him to value bet the river aggressivley, then check-call starts to look nice.

good luck.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]
i agree w/ e-dog (can we call u that?)

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
i agree w/ e-dog (can we call u that?)

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Great post.