Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

Masterhp, that is also fine of course
This is not a standard play for me, just thought the
situation was good for it

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

"then don't fold" I am not sure what you are quoting here. i said, " they don't fold, but can fold marginal hands to huge bets on the river."

I apologize if there is a language barrier here, but that is as simple as I can say that.

I didn't mean to give you any attitude, sorry if it seemed that way.

However, if you are so sure he has a two pair or a strong A and think he will call an overbet on the river, fine. in that case, you are going with a read on your opponent, which most of us do every day. However, when you post a hand asking for advice, we are assuming you are unsure as to what the best play is. Our responses are going to be standard and generic in most cases because that is how you play against the fish--play poker against those that know what they are doing (or just avoid them if you can).

If you feel that you are right and "we are missing a lot of value" by not pushing the river, then why did you post the hand? (not trying to be a dick).

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

you are right, your play is fine, nothing wrong with it. Hell, i have done it plenty of times against idiots. But usually what when a donk leads, he usually has something, even if that means the lowest pair. In your case, you are playing against a donkey and your play is fine. But think about this, what if you did not hit your straight on the river. Would you still have risked so much chips?

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

"you are right, your play is fine, nothing wrong with it. Hell, i have done it plenty of times against idiots. But usually what when a donk leads, he usually has something, even if that means the lowest pair. In your case, you are playing against a donkey and your play is fine. But think about this, what if you did not hit your straight on the river. Would you still have risked so much chips?"


Masterhp, once he calls my turn raise Im not putting in any more money unless I hit on the river

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

"apologize if there is a language barrier here, but that is as simple as I can say that.

I didn't mean to give you any attitude, sorry if it seemed that way."



"If you feel that you are right and "we are missing a lot of value" by not pushing the river, then why did you post the hand? (not trying to be a dick)"


Ness, its no problem. I dont think anything bad about U.
If you read my headline my consideration was about my
turn raise and concerning my all in on the end I think
that whats differs from small stakes and higher games.
Big value bets even without a history with the villian
Small stakes gamblers call because the are just that, gamblers


Tony

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villian is a fish, like or not like?

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here, semi-bluffing fish is generally not a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]



Are you saying that there is only one kind of fish?
Are all fishes calling stations? I think a fish in
general in a limit game is a player who calls too much.
In NL it can be to plain bad, not just calling too much

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Small stakes gamblers call because the are just that, gamblers



[/ QUOTE ]

theyre not gambling if there are no more cards to come. the turn raise is bad for the aforementioned reasons. thanks for telling me the difference between the small stakes and the big stakes.

have a nice day [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Small stakes gamblers call because the are just that, gamblers



[/ QUOTE ]

theyre not gambling if there are no more cards to come. the turn raise is bad for the aforementioned reasons. thanks for telling me the difference between the small stakes and the big stakes.

have a nice day [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


So making crying calls is not a way of gambling?

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villian is a fish, like or not like?

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here, semi-bluffing fish is generally not a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]



Are you saying that there is only one kind of fish?
Are all fishes calling stations? I think a fish in
general in a limit game is a player who calls too much.
In NL it can be to plain bad, not just calling too much

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, a fish is a player that calls too frequently and bets too small and infrequently so that they do not charge enough for good hands. They play many hands and passively. Therefore, when a "fish" bets it is usually with a hand they like.

Re: Scarecard semibluff, what U guys think?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Villian is a fish, like or not like?



Lindagirl (Hero) (EUR 85,30 in seat 1)
Sokrates (EUR 70,25 in seat 2)
ZeNNa (EUR 99,31 in seat 3)
wehrner (EUR 187,27 in seat 4)
BENGTSON10 (EUR 141,68 in seat 5)
sture* (EUR 149,00 in seat 6)

Dealer: BENGTSON10
Small Blind: sture* (1,00)
Big Blind: Lindagirl (2,00)

Lindagirl was dealt: 7s - 5c

Sokrates Fold
ZeNNa Fold
wehrner Fold
BENGTSON10 Call (2,00)
sture* Call (1,00)
Lindagirl Check

Flop 6c - Th - 4h

sture* Bet (3,00)
Linda69 Call (3,00)
BENGTSON10 Fold

Turn 6c - Th - 4h - As


sture* Bet (6,50)
Lindagirl Raise (18,00)
sture* Call (11,50)

River 6c - Th - 4h - As - 3d

sture* Check
Linda69 All-In (62,30)

[/ QUOTE ]

"Villain is a fish"

and hero is a shark sitting with $85 in a $1/$2 table?