[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]

This is so unbeliveably wrong. You're trying to be fancy. You do not need to be fancy. I'm willing to guess that if you played made hands strongly, and played the bubble very well, and left out all the crap like "raising the flop with K-high" out of your game, you would be a very consistent winner. Why would I assume that? Because it's what I do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is fancy. I'm betting at my opponents weakness, which is similar to betting due to my strength.

I don't doubt that you are a consistant winner. So am I. However, you can't look at every situation and say, "I don't play it that way, and I'm a consistant winner, so it's wrong". If you do this, you'll never learn or think of other ways to play hands. And if you aren't the greatest player in the world (re: stanzee), then you have something to learn, and there may be ways to play some hands more profitably.

You may be right about this hand, but cut out the crap about "I'm a winning player so do it the way I do". Just give your reasons; if they're good enough, they'll stand on their own.

[ QUOTE ]

Even if bluffing was important. You ask "how often does he have an 8." I ask you. "How often is the BB (who can have any two here), bet out the 2/3 the pot with 2 players left to act on a pure bluff." I can just about guarantee you the answer to your question is a higher percentage than the answer to my question.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. The fact that there are two players left when he bets should be a red flag that he's less likely to be purely bluffing.

Basically, (assuming you go into check/fold mode) if you raise to 200 (which is usually enough to chase bluffs out) you need to win here 6 times out of 10. In my experience I take down the pot here at a higher frequency.