|
|
#11
05-17-2005, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: some questions
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think betting and folding to a turn c/r getting 9:1 is something that we should never do in this case. Isn't there a double negative in here? [/ QUOTE ] I was looking at what you had quoted, not the original post, but no, that sentence does not have a double negative either. "I don't think betting . . ." negates the verb "to think". "We should never do . . ." negates the verb to do. A double negative would be something like "I don't think not betting . . ." Scott 
|
|
#12
05-17-2005, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: some questions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think betting and folding to a turn c/r getting 9:1 is something that we should never do in this case. Isn't there a double negative in here? [/ QUOTE ] I was looking at what you had quoted, not the original post, but no, that sentence does not have a double negative either. "I don't think betting . . ." negates the verb "to think". "We should never do . . ." negates the verb to do. A double negative would be something like "I don't think not betting . . ." Scott [/ QUOTE ] Should be rephrased, "We should consider folding to a turn check raise getting 9-1." Krishan
|
|
#14
05-17-2005, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: some questions
J.R.,
Great post, btw. One of the best in recent memory in this forum. I really don't get how after two hours this post hasn't got but 1 or 2 worthwhile responses. People will always respond to mind-numbingly boring hand posts, but when there is actually some thought involved there are basically no quality responses. How this post this good immediatly deteriorates into some critique of grammar is beyond me...*sigh* P.S. Start a new topic in the f******* OOT forum if you want to grammar. This forum has officially become worthless. ___1___
|
|
#15
05-17-2005, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: some questions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Should be rephrased, [/ QUOTE ] Wordy sentences do not a double negative make. Scott [/ QUOTE ] <font color="white"> My penis is not more smaller than Scott's!!! </font>
|
|
#17
05-17-2005, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: some questions
I dont think you will get CRed very often on the turn in this spot, but he may bet out on the river if you bet the turn. I dont see tight players do it very often as a bluff, so you can probably just give him creding for AJ valuebet or such and fold.
So I think you should bet turn to get value from KT,AT and maybe fold a small-medium pocket pair, A5 or something like JT. Think it matters a bit, but there are tons of things that can make one of the lines prefered over the other, so it´s not that big a difference. Assuming you check the turn and he bets the river I´d put him on something like: AJ^9,AQ^9,AT^12,KT^12,A5s^3,66-TT^30,KJ^9,KQ^9, so: 24 you beat and 59 you dont, roughly 2.5:1, so you must call. Weighted, I think you odds would be worse as KT/AT may recognize this as a cheap showdown play and not bluff, but AQ/KQ may or may not play faster for value, but it wont make up for the other. Probably still a call though. I´d probably just call if he bets the river on an A or K after you check turn, as your hand is pretty transparant at that point. I´d valuebet against most checks. I really dont think you will be CRed on the turn very often, so I´m folding. Maybe I´m biased by my own play on that though.
|
|
#18
05-17-2005, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: some questions
[ QUOTE ]
i ran the pokerstove on your range and this board, having the flop and turn rainbow. JR is approx a 60/40 dog on the flop and a 68/32 dog on the turned 7. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks MAxx. Considering this, I guess a question would be...How often must opponent fold second pair on the turn for a bet to be +EV (this assuming, of course, he won't fold top pair and he will just call our turn bet with second pair/openender)? I'm sure he would have to fold considerably more in theory than he actually would in practice. ___1___
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
