Since he doesn't bluff, I've got to fold, right? - Page 2

TStoneMBD · #11 04-30-2005, 01:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me, or is TStoneMBD's image not the best ever? By the way, I worked with Ivy in Linden, NJ as a telemarketer about 7 years ago. He once asked me to give him a short ride home, I wound up driving him to Trenton. Even then he was taking advantage of the suckers!

[/ QUOTE ]

what are you talking about??

avisco01 · #12 04-30-2005, 01:59 AM

Well, I assumed that was a picture of Phil Ivey, and thought it was pretty funny...nevermind, the joke has lost all luster now.

Demana · #13 04-30-2005, 06:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Call and lose 80% of the time. Still +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the generic sense of the hand, I agree. But based on my read of the opponent who would not bet unless they thought that they had the best hand, I'm really leaning towards folding. There seems like only two hands that opponent would have that he would play in this way (including calling my preflop raise): AQ & KQ.

When the King comes on the river and the SB leads out, for him to have two pair, he would have to have the case King. Furthermore, he is still betting into me because he may look at the king as being a scare card for me and he wants to be sure that he gets at least one bet on the river from me.

Since I bet the hand the whole way (including raising the flop), he's probably thinking that I have an over pair, set, or remotely AQ (he would not have expected me to raise with AQ). That means AA, KK, QQ, or JJ. The only cases where my hand and his chop are AQ & AA, but there are a whole bunch more hands that he now thinks that he beats.

His bet makes me think AQ and that he now has the nut straight. Based on all of that, I think I should have folded in this particular instance against this particular opponent.

If I thought that there was even the slightest chance that he was bluffing (or if he was an unknown), then I would call because it would be a long term +EV thing to do.