#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: River the underfull
Check call. The guy called two cold on the flop so the only hand you're getting value from is AdXd unless he is an idiot.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: River the underfull
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make sense. If there ARE players who will pay off with those hands and this guy is unknown, then there is a certain percentage chance he will be one of these players who pays off. It's like the range of opponents/range of hands that Josh mentioned the other day. Against an unknown it must be taken into account (so must the fact that unknowns figure to be worse players if you datamine or play a lot). In this case I think the opponent range and corresponding hand range is favorable to a bet/call. [/ QUOTE ] What doesn't make sense? That I think this 'certain percentage' is low? I agree that there is a certain percentage that will pay off with 22 or Q-high. But in my opinion the number that will pay off a bet is not even half the number that will be ahead of you here and raise your sorry butt. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: River the underfull
It makes sense if you say the percentage is too low (and that may well be true). It didn't make sense when you said the typical player doesn't pay off. Because if he does it some percentage then of course he does pay off, just not always. But whatever, seems we are arguing semantics. Important thing is to decide if this percentage is adequate or not. Thought it was quite close from the beginning so perhaps I should rethink.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: River the underfull
[ QUOTE ]
It makes sense if you say the percentage is too low (and that may well be true). It didn't make sense when you said the typical player doesn't pay off. Because if he does it some percentage then of course he does pay off, just not always. But whatever, seems we are arguing semantics. Important thing is to decide if this percentage is adequate or not. Thought it was quite close from the beginning so perhaps I should rethink. [/ QUOTE ] I don't mind arguing semantics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Just because the typical player doesn't pay off doesn't mean that *other*, atypical players won't. I just doubt there's sufficient numbers of of them. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: River the underfull
I ck-cl river, too, and don't think it makes me a wuss. My view is the same as others here in that I think the number of "unknowns" at 10/20 that will call this river with a worse hand is much less than the number that will bluff a busted draw when checked to them. So I see bet/call as very often losing two; and I see betting not earning one as often as check-calling does.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: River the underfull
check call seems fine to me-- he's either got a 9 or a busted flush draw or straight draw. dont get why you would bet.
|
|
|