Re: aa vs set
[ QUOTE ]
Now, to my thinking, if at this point hero pushes and takes down the pot, terrific. There's enough dough.
[/ QUOTE ]
agreed
[ QUOTE ]
Losing to a set? Sure it's not an easy call BUT
I still can't figure out why you don't put villain on TT-KK? Just because he limped? He's already called a raise and gone over the top on the raggedy flop.
[/ QUOTE ]
He can have TT-KK, as far as possibilities go he can have any two cards, but it doesn't make any sense with this action so I don't consider it.
[ QUOTE ]
So, if I understand what you're saying, you're putting him on a possible draw, so you check the turn and if he bets it, then THAT's the indicator that he's made his hand ( er. . . esp if a 'scare card comes? ) or already had a set on the flop.
And you don't consider this weak/tight play. Though you're giving a free card, you're going to get the info, because if he is on a draw he's going to check after you check, and if he bets (how much, btw?) you fold.
I see the logic of your thinking here but . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with not giving away a free card in this spot is that you can't price out draws so if you make a decent sized bet and get raised you're pot commited, if you make any bet that doesn't commmit you you're giving perfect odds to draws and showing a ton of weakness so you might get pushed off the best hand by a decent player. A check looks a lot scarier than a bet here.
|