#1141
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
[ QUOTE ]
Why did Hachem check CALL his straight ??? Why no raise ??? [/ QUOTE ] He was value-calling the nuts. |
#1142
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why did Hachem check CALL his straight ??? Why no raise ??? [/ QUOTE ] He was value-calling the nuts. [/ QUOTE ] It was clearly not the nuts. |
#1143
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
Yeah, that's a good reason
|
#1144
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why did Hachem check CALL his straight ??? Why no raise ??? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure if it was the right play, but you have to figure there weren't many hands you beat that would call a raise with that board. You're usually only getting action if you're beat. I may have raised, but I suck at tournament poker. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. I think more than half the hands he calls with Hachem beats. This is 3 handed here and a straight is a monster hand. Tex certainly did not play like he had a pocket pair. If he didn't, then the only hand that Hachem loses to is Tx where the x is on the board. More likely, Hachem has trip T's if he calls. The straight is well concealed and I'd probably call a raise with trip T's... then again, I suck, so what do I know. |
#1145
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
Layne "And that's why you have 10 bracelets."
Phil "Nine. Don't rub it in." Layne "Ha Ha HA" |
#1146
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
I hear no audio commentary due to a crappy computer, but I'm guessing the commentators are talking about the excessively passive play... full of non-pot under-bets/raises.
|
#1147
|
|||
|
|||
Re: \"I\'ve got a big everything baby\"
"i would have raised with nothing there"
"and that's why you have 10 bracelets phil" "9....dont rub it in" |
#1148
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
"and that's why you have TEN bracelets"
"nine" "oh nine, sorry" "Don't rub it in" [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] edit: cripes, foiled again |
#1149
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
[ QUOTE ]
If he didn't, then the only hand that Hachem loses to is Tx where the x is on the board [/ QUOTE ] Really? Even if Tex didn't have a PP the above isn't true, and you're basically only getting your raise called and winning the pot against the trip tens. That's a narrow range of hands to raise against. |
#1150
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phil is back, back again...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If he didn't, then the only hand that Hachem loses to is Tx where the x is on the board [/ QUOTE ] Really? Even if Tex didn't have a PP the above isn't true. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, AJ would have made a higher straight, but Tex almost certainly would have raised preflop with AJ. Edit: I agree that Tex folds this with almost all hands, but I still think "just" trip T's represents a little over half of all his calls. |
|
|