#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: easy turn laydown of AA?
bet more on the turn.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: easy turn laydown of AA?
I'm not trying to be critical at all, I'm just trying to reinforce some NL basics for myself from these posts. I feel that for NL advice in particular, it is not enough for someone just to advise what the next action should be without giving a couple of contingencies. So I would prefer to see advise such as "Bet x% of the pot on the turn and then ?? (call/fold) to a reraise. If just called on the turn ?? (then bet/call/fold) to a river raise on a blank." Or would this kind of advice be oversimplifying things too much?
So Hero should have bet more on the turn here. I'm guessing that means 3/4 of the pot. Should he have bet the full pot leading on the flop as well? In that case the pot would have been $36 on the turn. If he bet $30 leading on the turn then he would have already invested $46 in this hand, or almost exactly half his stack. If MP2 then reraised all-in would you suggest folding or calling? You would have 3:1 odds on the call if he was bluffing or raising with just top pair. If you assume 10% bluff frequency (as Harrington suggests) then you just need to win an additional 15% of the time when he has a lower pair/semi-bluff for calling to be profitable. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how to get away from this hand if your opponent flops a set, assuming you don't have a great read on him (as is the case here). I think that I understand that you need to bet more on the turn so that you don't appear too weak (avoid getting shots taken at you on a reraise) and to reduce the odds for a flush draw. But doesn't this tie you to the pot? Or is that just the better alternative when compared to letting your opponents draw cheaply? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|