[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I can't think of any advanced poker logic that can possibily justify calling one street, but not the other. Its just fundamentally wrong against an unknown opponent.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the logic that if he bets the 2nd street the chances of his having the best increases to where folding is correct?

i.e. you were calling on the 1st street hoping that he will check behind on the 2nd street often enough in combination with you improve often enough to make the play profitable.

Like you said this is bad against an unknown, but there are certain basic situations where you could pull this off against an unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't ever see this being correct against an unknown player. Some players you know will only fire once, an this is certainly a board where players like that would take that line. This is an unknown player though, and if you've convinced yourself that he's bluffing on the turn, then your showing the hand down. If you're not sure of his intention then calling is horrible, because you can't be any more sure when he bets the river because he's an unknown.

Its about expectations. Against somebody you know, and more importantly somebody that knows you, you can reasonably assume that they EXPECT you to call the river after you call the turn. Therefore, you should fold the river if they bet again, since they're expecting you to call.

Against an unknown there are no reasonable expectations, especially online. People do stuff that makes no sense all the time. I'm just saying in this particular instance if your gonna fold, fold on the turn.

lf