#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ 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 |
|
|