Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd call here to see what he had, but with no illusions of my J being good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving one of the top players in the room a extra bet just to see what he has? Mike gets $120 when he prob should get $60 at the max and thats questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play bad.

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd call here to see what he had, but with no illusions of my J being good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving one of the top players in the room a extra bet just to see what he has? Mike gets $120 when he prob should get $60 at the max and thats questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

me too.

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

This is all much simpler if you raise the turn, no?

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

schnieds and i were just talkin about this hand ... i made the following 3 statements:

i dont know if i could call that river c'r...looks like he's doing an expert c'r...but knowing bk would see it like that its a call lol.

honestly it looks like bk just got PWNED by AA/KK/QQ/JJ

finally,

so i dont bet that riv after a good player bets both streets post flop despite the pf cap and then checks a riv and i have a marginal hand. its just too likely that im getting c'red and i have a hand worth a showdown.

schnieds agrees in saying that

yea i think mike put BK on AK or AQ. so he hcecked river to get BK to bet the AQ or bluff the AK

i dont bet that river.
Barron

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

I would still call the river check raise, but I would have never bet the river in the first place.

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would still call the river check raise, but I would have never bet the river in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe your exact words after your epiphany were "so betting the river basically sucks nuts...but you're good juuuuust often enough that you have to call the river c'r"

it just sounds soo much better [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
-Barron

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

I think you misplayed this hand preflop and on the turn...but that being said and done, it was still a good value bet on the river and you should call, although you are most likely beat, to see what your opponent holds and take this information further into the game <font color="red"> </font>

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

I dont know what you're history is with this guy, but have you given any thought to a bluff 3-bet here?

I think he can find a fold here with the one pair hands (AA/KK/AQ) enough of the time for it to show a profit, as long as you haven't made this move against him in the past.

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

my gawd he played his hand well.

Re: 30/60 canterbury vs worm33
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you misplayed this hand preflop and on the turn...but that being said and done, it was still a good value bet on the river and you should call, although you are most likely beat, to see what your opponent holds and take this information further into the game <font color="red"> </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

yes and no. yes, you should call. no because its not for information.

you're calling because of what the c'r looks like. for example, when i have AK and 3bet a tight players raise from the sb and the flop is A22 and i bet the flop and the turn is a 5 and i bet again and the river comes another 5 i'll check. the reason is because this tight player does NOT have KK/QQ/AA/JJ b/c he didn't cap pf. he has AQ-AT. he can't know that i dont have those hands so when i check he'll bet and i'll raise. most of the time i do that he'll still call with his weaker ace.

now despite the cap (which bk will do with virtually any hand he'll raise with from that position) mike bets the flop and the turn and is called on both streets. but now if he has 77 or 66 or 88 or whatever a middle pair is there that doesn't match up w/ the board including TT i think, he can check raise bk off of a better hand enough of the time since he's such a good player that bk should call.

so yes, he should call. but no, not for information.

-Barron