[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I still would probably bet the professor's hand, even though a check could induce a bluff. You often get paid off by a player who thinks his weak high, e.g., a pair on the river, might get half the pot.

The people who think check is right seem to be result merchants to me.



[/ QUOTE ]

Barry,

How often are you (or any other good player for that matter) calling a pot-sized bet from 3-wheel cards on the river in the hopes of winning the 1/2 the pot with a pair.

The reason I think a check on the river is right is that I assume you would checkraise the river big if you caught the K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (or any wheel or 6 high straight if you started with 2345) in addition to your scooping hands in attempt to blow your opponent off 1\2 the pot. I don't think that anyone would argue that potting a smooth 7 with no high on the river would be right here, and given your board and your call vs. his board on 6th, I don't think the 2 hands are all that different. I think that bet is hard-pressed to extract value on the river against a good player and it could easily open the door to a nasty high varience situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of these questions are mainly poker questions, not math questions. My familiarity with how each particular player bets certain hands (missing a high, but having a good low) is a big factor.

Since I would only call his sixth street bet with a two-way draw, I knew the professor would only bet this big with a genuine two-way hand. I gave him a minumum of a six high straight for high and also for low on my read of his bet. I was also sure that he would call any raise with a hand this strong.

Given this poker read on my part, think for a little before scrolling down to decide what hands should I raise with.


You should come to the conclusion that it is really only right for me to raise with a flush AND a six for low. Otherwise, I will be putting a raise in for scare value on, let's say, an Ace-high flush without a good low, hoping he doesn't have a better flush.

Therefore, it really was a lock that I had what I had, as I stated in the book. (I was holding off posting this because I was comtemplating putting this discussion in the second edition, since many players told me that it was far from a lock that I had a six low and a straight.

So that begs the question: Should the professor have folded when I raised him?

Barry