![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Villian is drinking and gambling. After studying him for 2 hours, I am quite impressed with his postflop play - he reads hands and players well and is picking up far more pots than he should be. He is the prototypical SoCal "fish" - he loses, but on any given night he can send a weak-tight player home broke and crying to his mama. At the moment this hand came up, he was on a tear, playing 75% of his hands for a raise PF.
Villian open-raises from MP - this indicates he has anything except unsuited unconnectors. 2 tight-predictable coldcallers, SB (unknown) calls, I make a bad call in the BB with QTo. Got caught up in gambling fever, I guess. Flop is QsTs3s. SB checks, I bet, villian raises, folded back to me and I just call, with the intention of checkraising a blank turn. Turn is a blank. I checkraise. He 3-bets. It is the first time he has 3-bet a big-bet street since I've been at the table. I call. River is a blank. I check. He bets and says, "you call, you lose." I called. My flop and turn play were quite different than what would be considered standard, but I wanted to get the most out of him if he held absolute crap, which was likely. There was virtually no chance of him checking behind the turn - he had not done it since I'd been there, and my line on the flop looked very much like I was drawing, or could be pushed off the hand, or both. The river decision was also not clear. I am looking at top 2 pair, and he could have 3-bet the turn with AsQx. But I called because he had bet or raised at every opportunity, and I thought the risk that a 3-bet (that I would have to pay off) was too great. Did I overthink this hand, or are these adjustments reasonable? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Villian is drinking and gambling. After studying him for 2 hours . . ."
-His drinking, or his gambling? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] "are these adjustments reasonable?" -I think so. If he's never going to check the turn, that should figure into one's strategy on the flop and turn. "The river decision was also not clear." -You say he's playing well post-flop. That being the case, he might fold to a check-raise with As-Qx (or a worse hand), or 3-bet with a set. I think those possibilities outweigh the chances that he's still pushing Q-3s or T-3s. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
He could have 3-bet the turn with As alone.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
He bets and says, "you call, you lose." [/ QUOTE ] So raise. It would be funny. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Anybody have experience with "you call you lose?" I'm trying to think; seems to me that when guys have said to me "if you can only call, you can't win," they have as advertised--a pretty good hand, but not the nuts. Which would mean it's probably pretty close between Ryno and his opponent.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've been thinking about that too. Assuming he's not completely irrational, he's gonna want your call if he's got an extremely strong hand. But he doesnt want to look like a fool (edit: if you do call him), so he probably doesn't have nothing . This might be an interesting post in the Psychology forum.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I would have gone to the felt on the flop.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In this situation I read it that his made hand held up. I agree with you that the word "only", which was not spoken, was implied - if you can *only* call, you can't win.
What's interesting is that in a later hand, he said "you can't call", and in that case he was stone bluffing. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I almost did...
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Why not wait 'til the turn to see if a 4th spade comes?
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|