|
|
#11
07-11-2005, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AQs
bet/folding would be horrible
|
|
#13
07-11-2005, 12:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AQs
[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean the river? [/ QUOTE ] Naw, I fed this one up. I think it's played alright. Krishan
|
|
#14
07-11-2005, 01:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AQs
[ QUOTE ]
bet/folding would be horrible [/ QUOTE ] Ok, very good and all, but humor me with a why?
|
|
#15
07-11-2005, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AQs
I don't really understand this line. It seems like his turn check says he has a missed draw or a weak ace. Is he very likely to bet either one? He can't put a very high probability of you folding to such a harmless river card after you 3bet the flop.
Speaking of which, I don't like the flop 3bet. This seems like a standard way ahead/way behind situation (though of course there are flush/gutshot possibilities). I'd just look to call down after he raises flop. Of course, lead river if he checks behind on turn. Maybe lead river regardless of turn if it looks safe. No read at all on this guy?
|
|
#16
07-11-2005, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AQs
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand this line. It seems like his turn check says he has a missed draw or a weak ace. Is he very likely to bet either one? He can't put a very high probability of you folding to such a harmless river card after you 3bet the flop. Speaking of which, I don't like the flop 3bet. This seems like a standard way ahead/way behind situation (though of course there are flush/gutshot possibilities). I'd just look to call down after he raises flop. Of course, lead river if he checks behind on turn. Maybe lead river regardless of turn if it looks safe. No read at all on this guy? [/ QUOTE ] I really liked this line. When you check to him on the river he will probably bet 3 types of hands: 1. Monster, which will 3-bet you, in which case you fold. 2. Missed draw, which wouldn't call a bet, but will bet hoping to take the pot 3. Weaker ace, which will pay you off for another bet. The only problem I could see with this line is if the opponent was somewhat of a maniac, who could 3-bet this river with a worse hand, in which case I'd bet/call. As for being WA/WB, with the flush draw/broadway cards, I dont think this qualifies.
|
|
#20
07-11-2005, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
RESULTS
I didn't really participate in the discussion here because everything I had to say was said well by others already.
I don't agree that I shouldn't three-bet the flop because I'm either "way ahead or way behind". That is not a reason not to reraise. If I think I'm ahead the large majority of the time and I think I make more money when I'm ahead by being aggressive, I am going to do it or I am leaving money on the table. Once he four-bets, I change my opinion on how often I am ahead and decide it is better to back off and check-call the turn. But when he checks it through, I am almost certain I have him beat, so I need to come up with a new river plan. If he has a busted draw, I make more by checking than by betting because he will sometimes bluff and will almost never have something he can call with. He may not bluff very often since it is obvious that I am not folding, but still often enough that I make more than by betting, which will almost always fold him. This is low limits and the players are bad, so I am happy to give him the opportunity to make a stupid mistake. I think his most likely hand is a weak ace that was trying to slow me down with the flop cap to get to a showdown cheaply. I'm sure that he will bet this if I check again and a check-raise on my part looks so strange, that I think he will pay off often out of suspicion and curiousity, so I also make more by checking the river than by betting which will cause him to just call. These two scenarios are so much more likely than any others on the river, that I think check-raising is definitely better than leading on the river. The actual result is that he had Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and MHIG.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
