#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
[ QUOTE ]
QT probably doesn't bluff. Most weak players(and it appears this guy is) will check behind with Jack, or a flush. You are missing way too much value not bettign that river. No one at this level is going to bluff raise you out with a worse hand. The turn bet is just a pot bloater that gives you no info, no fold equity, and leaves you oop in a spot where you no idea what is going on on most rivers. Bets like this will get torn apart vs good players. [/ QUOTE ] Turn bet seems seriously alright to me. I'm not trying to ram and jam like crazy with a flush here, and I ain't gonna check. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
[ QUOTE ]
Bets like this will get torn apart vs good players. [/ QUOTE ] I use bets like this semi-frequently. I use them in the following situations: a) With a draw vs. weak villian who will let me see the river for cheap, but who will bet more than I would if I check. b) With a big hand that I'm not worried about being drawn out on vs. a weak player who I'm pretty sure is drawing. c) With a big hand vs. a strong player to induce a bluff. d) With a draw/bluff vs. a strong player after I've busted him with c. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
Oh yeah, as for the actual hand:
Bet $100-$120 or so, fold to a raise. I like it particularly in this spot, because he's very likely drawing. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Bets like this will get torn apart vs good players. [/ QUOTE ] I use bets like this semi-frequently. I use them in the following situations: a) With a draw vs. weak villian who will let me see the river for cheap, but who will bet more than I would if I check. b) With a big hand that I'm not worried about being drawn out on vs. a weak player who I'm pretty sure is drawing. c) With a big hand vs. a strong player to induce a bluff. d) With a draw vs. a strong player after I've busted him with c. [/ QUOTE ] a) Ok, I might bet a little less though if he is that weak. b) I bet about 3/4 pot in these spots, since they call anyways. c) Ok. d) Not sure If I understand, please explain more. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
hehe, for some reason I thought he was talking about the turn.
Dumle |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
[ QUOTE ]
d) Not sure If I understand, please explain more. [/ QUOTE ] If I used the old "small bet to induce a bluff" line on a strong player in the past, and it worked, I am much more likely to make this same move with a semi-bluff in the future. Since the most common hands for me to make this with (when I'm trying to induce a bluff) are nut-flush, full-house, set on drawless board, the line shows a ton of strength, and may make him lay down a lot of hands. If he just calls, well, he let me try to hit my draw for cheap. Whether I do the weak-lead/fold, weak-lead/3-bet or weak-lead/call c/r, bf, b/c b/rr, etc. depends on my hand, the player, my read, stack sizes, board texture, etc. A recent thread. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Results
Thanks for the comments everyone
On the river, I bet $100 and villain called with QJo. I liked the bet at the time, but I didn't want to be results-oriented, good to see that most of you like this bet here. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, as for the actual hand: Bet $100-$120 or so, fold to a raise. I like it particularly in this spot, because he's very likely drawing. [/ QUOTE ] If he's likely to be drawing, then why are we bet/folding? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
Because if he has a flush, he's not going to raise.
|
|
|