|
|
#11
10-29-2005, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To show or not to show bluffs (Strategy/Metagame NL100)
I seldom show my hand if I dont have to, unless it's a straightflush or a royal, then I use to show it.
Almost the only way I think it worth showing hands in Poker whatsoever is in tournament in the middle stages if you steal a lot but have a tight image that you don't want to lose, then you can show for example AK after you've raised and picked up the blinds. 
|
|
#12
10-29-2005, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To show or not to show bluffs (Strategy/Metagame NL100)
[ QUOTE ]
I also play this way but I want people to loosen up vs me in a big pot... [/ QUOTE ] no, this is the exact opposite of what you want to happen. This is because it is more proper to play looser if the pot is large than if it is small. look at it with this extreme. there is a pot with 100000 bucks in it and you bet .25 on the flop. Do you want him to call or fold? He certainly has pot odds in this case to call you, thus you want him to fold. So in reality you want him to be too tight when the pot is big. Melch
|
|
#13
10-29-2005, 07:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To show or not to show bluffs (Strategy/Metagame NL100)
If you've shown some bluffs, you have to become more selective in your continuation bets and stabs.
If you think you're viewed as a LAG/donk/full of crap continuation betting OOP is suicide. Give the money to your dog. In position, it may not be horrible, but I like to check behind on the flop and then stab on the turn if he checks again. Although very transparent of my hand, chances are if he wanted the pot he'd lead the turn anyway.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
