Re: 97s.
 

i'm saying that there's not enough advertising value here to make it a key factor or even a benefit one should consider when playing the hand.

"Bad players think calling 3xBB a fishy play"
hopefully this isn't a dig at me....

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]


That's why it is a bluff. I can't beat anything that calls.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, which is even more important because its a stone cold pure bluff that needs the opponent to fold 68% of the time to break even. break. even.

Re: 97s.
 

You just invested $88 with zero pot equity. Plays like these are collosal leaks, even though we all make them from time to time.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
No read on opponent

[/ QUOTE ]

if you have no read there is very little value in bluffing (even on a board where he "may" have missed).

i would continue frequently raising these types of hands from the button, but, as drawing hands looking to build a pot with position. stab for $24 on the flop if you want, then give up. although the action you will get when you do hit the flop will make up for all the times you just check behind on flop (so i don't mind just checking behind on the flop and giving up).

did any of this make sense?

Re: 97s.
 

w/o reads that MP3 is loose passive pf and then weak on flop I just call here pf.

If ur going to bluff this flop u gotta pot it.
I recommend you just check/fold here though.

Given ur flop play I have no idea what u are trying to represent on the turn. If I bluff here I would do a post oak bluff if checked to on river. But this whole hand looks like one big dark tunnel bluff to me.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
hopefully this isn't a dig at me....

[/ QUOTE ]

How in God's name is this a shot at you? lol.


[ QUOTE ]
Plays like these are collosal leaks, even though we all make them from time to time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never do these. I would say 99% of the time here I have the nuts or very close to it. Figured opponent was weak, went with my read, and bet. I don't frequently jam all in blindly like this. :-/

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


That's why it is a bluff. I can't beat anything that calls.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, which is even more important because its a stone cold pure bluff that needs the opponent to fold 68% of the time to break even. break. even.

[/ QUOTE ]

risking $72 to win a $63 pot... my gorilla math puts this at 53% to break even.

Will he fold that often? If not, i think it's close, and you definately make up the difference in metagame. Saying noone pays attention is wrong... even at 25NL tables people notice when you bluff all in with 9 high.

Re: 97s.
 

Looks ok, but I'd bet a little more on flop. 2/3 I think is a slightly better amount. Turn looks good.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]



risking $72 to win a $63 pot... my gorilla math puts this at 53% to break even.


[/ QUOTE ]

63x - 135(1-x) = 0

63x - 135 + 135x = 0

198x = 135

x = .68

am i doing this right?

edit: wait i see my mistake, man im dumb. not losing 135, losing 72 ....gorilla math wins

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]

How in God's name is this a shot at you? lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

not a clue. i was just confused.