[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

[/ QUOTE ]

(Edit: It's been pointed out that I missed the fact that Baron's opponent checked his post pre-flop, which total invalidates my analysis below. Please ignore this post)

I have to say I was troubled by his thought process as well.

First he says that, preflop, he was sure his opponent had a terrible hand, because he raised his post 100% of the time. Myself, that tells me his opponent has any two cards, meaning a few (not many, but some) of his possible hands are actually good.

Then he lists out what his oppenent has shown down:
[ QUOTE ]
He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces).

[/ QUOTE ]
...the last of which is a pretty good hand.

Next, the flop comes down monotone + straightish. Baron lists out hands his opponent doesn't have:

[ QUOTE ]

1. Any pocket pair;
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace;
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector;
4. And, most importantly, he didn't have two suited cards.

He didn't have a flush, but he could have a straight (not via an eight-six, but possibly by a six-trey).


[/ QUOTE ]

Taking these one by one:
1. Pocket pair - but his opponent played AA before in the same situation
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace - his opponent played J3o and AA here before
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector - his opponent played 64o before.
4. The flush - his opponent had shown down 93s before.

I can't see any information presented up to this point in the hand description that would justify making the above assumptions about his opponent's possible non-holdings.

Now perhaps Baron made these deductions after he had more information when the opponent checked the flop (although his narrative doesn't indicate this). But it does sound to me like a case of putting his opponent on the precise holdings that would justify playing back with air.

My 2 cents,

The Wolf