100-200 against stoxtrader

[andyfox]

"now watch ill be wrong and the guy has quads."

Yeah, that or pocket 9s seems likely.

I think James confounded his opponent by checking behind on the turn. Agaisnt a tough 2+2er, playing A-A like A-K and vice versa can be quite effective. As Josh says, that turn check says A-K. Ergo, the check-raise on the river.

[Gabe]

I'm not saying that based on:

[ QUOTE ]
Turn is a 9. If I'm Stox, I'm putting James on a pair, which will bet here nearly 100% of the time, AQ, which will bet here 100% of the time, or AK, which may or may not bet here.

SB checks, and James checks. Duh, James must have AK.

River King...bada bing!! what a great river checkraise opportunity we have here!! So, viola, he checkraises James on the river.


[/ QUOTE ]

that James should necessarily fold the river, but somewhere in this quagmire of a thread, I thought I read that you thought James should 3-bet the river. If I'm wrong and you didn't say this, I apologize. If I'm right and you did say this you're insane.

[mike l.]

yeah my first post said he should 3 bet the river. then hero came on said there's no way on earth sb could have a K here. so that narrows his hand down to..hmm let's see here.. the nuts.. and hmm..let's see...NOTHING ELSE. WOW! what a useless thread!

see where im coming from?

[mike l.]

"As Josh says, that turn check says A-K. Ergo, the check-raise on the river."

ergo, no. if sb has a Q here why not BET the river when he figures hero has AK hoping hero will raise so sb can THREE BET.

that's the play.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">he just realizes, that I actually consider the fat that 3 bet two solid players out of the BB. This point is really the only one i think not made in the thread yet... </font>

You have to consider (at least when viewing my responses), that it wasn't mentioned until very late that this was a 6-handed game. Maybe it depends on where you're from, but I do not consider a 6 handed to be short handed. It's just not a full game. Many short handed tactics don't come into full swing in a 6-way game.

However, even 6-way, I don't think you should be able to narrow down his holding quite so precisely because of his 3-bet out of the big blind. Unless your cold call from the sb can be narrowed down just as readily. And even then, you could make the case for not 3-betting AA.

What I've been trying to get at is that there are no real rights or wrongs in this hand. Just differing concepts that need to be applied and re-applied in order to distort an opponent's perception of what I saw someone once refer to on here as meta-game considerations.

[J.A.Sucker]

There's this whole idea that with certain hands, you ideally want a certain amount of action. With a weak hand that you want to showdown, it may be about 2 BB's. With a great hand, it's many more. With this hand, the line I describe gets or gives what seems to be the right amount of action.

[mike l.]

"the right amount of action."

i am completely in line with you on this one. very well said. i have struggled with this concept for a long time and in the past 6 months to a year ive finally started to understand it and accept it.

please read my other posts in this thread id be interested to hear what you think.

[Lestat]

N/M

[stoxtrader]

I had KQ.

A turn lead by me is arguably the best line.

My thinking on the turn on his range based on the board and my holding was this: AK / AA / JJ and then possibly but much less likely KK, AQs/AQ, TT/99. Do i get more action from that range with a lead on a QQ9x board? Now I think probably.

At the time I feared he would fold outright to a turn lead cause my line is actually very strong. It looks like I whiffed on a c/r the field on the flop (which I did).

So is it a big mistake? is there no doubt I should have led the turn and not checked it?

I do also think that it is very tough to analyze these situations because they are splayer situation dependant (both SH and higher limits). so everyone is entitled to their opinion, and a lot of posters have made good points, including james, lestat, mike l., schneids (his smootcall AA point is well take in this particular situation).

Diablo, while cute. hasn't added much in the way of strategy - it is certainly eaiser to critique those on the battefield than enter yourself.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
Diablo, while cute. hasn't added much in the way of strategy - it is certainly eaiser to critique those on the battefield than enter yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running well lately?