|
|
#11
06-11-2005, 02:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: subtlety w/ AQo.
[ QUOTE ]
Even a LP-P would 3-bet a flush. Its not really important that its not the stone cold nuts. Most LP-P arent't that passive. What about the times you checkraise and he calls with hands that beat you? [/ QUOTE ] I am not getting thru to you... 1. Mae Culpa, now for the 3rd time. 2. Heads up you, for the most part, do not consider the flush as a likely hand (on the flop). That, I believe, is sort of generally accepted heads up strategy. The montone board does, though, figure into a semi-bluff strategy. 3. You really think there is a reasonble likelihood of him having a better hand? Please expound upon that. 4. Is my turn -> river sequence fishy? 
|
|
#13
06-11-2005, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: subtlety w/ AQo.
[ QUOTE ]
i hate this play. it'd be really cool if he checked behind you on the turn and got a free card for a diamond... real cool. [/ QUOTE ] really now, read the hand again! then make your comment.
|
|
#14
06-11-2005, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: subtlety w/ AQo.
[ QUOTE ]
He connected with the flop; that's for certain. LPPs have no stomach for A monotone flop unless they get a piece either by pairing or with a big flushie draw. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So I was pretty certain that he would bet the turn, at least as a semi-bluff. He was a winning player after all and this seems an easy semi-bluff. [/ QUOTE ] The above two paragraphs are completely inconsistent because: 1) LPPs don't semi-bluff scary boards just because they have a piece of it. 2) LPPs aren't winning players.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
