|
|
#11
10-24-2005, 10:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not calling down 2BB just to hope he's on a fd or pure bluff. [/ QUOTE ] But you're willing to invest 1.5BB just to hope your opponent is c/ring an underpair into 2 players. I'm failing to find the consistency here. 
|
|
#12
10-24-2005, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not calling down 2BB just to hope he's on a fd or pure bluff. [/ QUOTE ] But you're willing to invest 1.5BB just to hope your opponent is c/ring an underpair into 2 players. I'm failing to find the consistency here. [/ QUOTE ] And I'm failing to see your connection. And I only pay 0.5BB more than if I was going to call down. I'm not playing against myself here and even if I were I will be holding Ax[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] very rarely if you compare how often I will be on Kx or AA-TT. If I were playing against myself my odds would look like this to call down with 99: AK/KQ/KJ/KT/K9: 60 combos AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT: 27 combos AQ-A2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 10 combos You're behind 90% against these holdings with 99 and you are drawing to 2 outs. When you're ahead of my Ax[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] hands I have 12-15 outs against you. You get 8:2 on your money calling down from the turn, calling down would be bad against me. Even though I most often don't 3-bet JJ/TT on the flop, but I think that gets somewhat compensated by the fact that I don't always raise A5-2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] preflop. Sometimes I might make the same move with QJ/QT[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], but we're still not near the ~25% you need to be ahead to be able to call down me with 99. As said, I can't see your connection, but you have to realise that even if you KNEW I would 3-bet the flop with Ax[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] you still can't call down profitable. Please post again if I missed you. And try to address what about my thinking you think is flawed instead of drawing some vague connection. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just try to understand what you're saying so we can have a discussion.
|
|
#13
10-24-2005, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
[ QUOTE ]
As said, I can't see your connection... [/ QUOTE ] Nick, I appreciate all the work you're doing on this thread, as it is an interesting line. I wasn't trying to be snippy - I was trying to point out that you are assuming that villian will fold to your aggression because you hold the goods almost all the time (best case for you). Yet you also surmise that villian may fold because he's not holding a SD-quality hand (best case for you, too). So while there's a chance that you are looking at the parley of someone who has a hand strong enough to c/r but not strong enough to take to SD, the hand counts are heavily in favor of Kx, 6x, 2 pair, set, or a non-folding pair vs. a turn-folding 6x or PP. I'm too lazy to work out the hand counts, but I'd say there's a lot better chance you don't beat 99 than there is that villian isn't going to SD.
|
|
#14
10-24-2005, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
The key point here is that we should only be betting if one of the following two things are true:
1. We have a hand that has legit showdown value. We can choose to put in a big bet here rather than a big bet on the river if we check. 2. Villain might fold a hand he should call with (like a small pair or something). If neither of these are true we should check. I made a post that's currently in the digest about this exact issue. My theory is that you should follow through with a bet here if one of the above two are likely true, and if villain is unlikely to check-raise. I think this is a pretty clear check. Players don't often check-raise without at least a pair. You're only beating another busted flush draw, really, and that doesn't seem all that likely given the pre-flop action. Villain has a pair here far more often than he has a flush draw.
|
|
#15
10-24-2005, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to be snippy - I was trying to point out that you are assuming that villian will fold to your aggression because you hold the goods almost all the time (best case for you). Yet you also surmise that villian may fold because he's not holding a SD-quality hand (best case for you, too). [/ QUOTE ] Ok, I understand. What I ment was that when I bet this flop he's a favourite, but when I 3-bet it he's certainly not. I rarely do that with a hand worse than a K here. I often find myself holding a marginal hand in a pot where I need to raise because it's better than calling and letting others in cheap. But when I meet heavy resistance I let it go. This is probably the way I would play 99/88 in this hand for example. I might be wrong doing so or I might be wrong assuming others will
|
|
#16
10-24-2005, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a pretty clear check. Players don't often check-raise without at least a pair. You're only beating another busted flush draw, really, and that doesn't seem all that likely given the pre-flop action. Villain has a pair here far more often than he has a flush draw. [/ QUOTE ] I 3-bet the flop and bet the turn because I think this flop check/raise is often coming from PP's realising I've often missed the flop. I have no doubt villain is on a pair far, far more often than a fd. I would play hands like 99/88 from BB this way and fold for a bet on the turn, am I wrong doing so? Showing this aggression, you don't think villain will fold 13% of the time if I bet the turn? More importantly, what hands do you put villain on and with which of these do you think will call down?
|
|
#17
10-24-2005, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think this is a pretty clear check. Players don't often check-raise without at least a pair. You're only beating another busted flush draw, really, and that doesn't seem all that likely given the pre-flop action. Villain has a pair here far more often than he has a flush draw. [/ QUOTE ] I 3-bet the flop and bet the turn because I think this flop check/raise is often coming from PP's realising I've often missed the flop. I have no doubt villain is on a pair far, far more often than a fd. I would play hands like 99/88 from BB this way and fold for a bet on the turn, am I wrong doing so? Showing this aggression, you don't think villain will fold 13% of the time if I bet the turn? More importantly, what hands do you put villain on and with which of these do you think will call down? [/ QUOTE ] I think you're probably being a little too optimistic in thinking that villain is often check-raising with air here. The flop contains a K, which is a reasonably scary card to villain. Without knowledge of his playing style, I don't think we should base our turn decision on this possibility. Another key thing to realize is that a huge percentage of the time villain folds the turn, he's folding a worse hand. I don't really see any K or even a hand like 99 folding here often enough to make it worthwhile.
|
|
#18
10-24-2005, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Playing the nut flushdraw
[ QUOTE ]
Another key thing to realize is that a huge percentage of the time villain folds the turn, he's folding a worse hand. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I realise that. I just don't think he'll check/raise without any part of the board (pair or fd) or a PP. [ QUOTE ] I don't really see any K or even a hand like 99 folding here often enough to make it worthwhile. [/ QUOTE ] I guess this is where my reasoning is flawed. I've suspected I've been playing draws too aggressive HU when reading other post on the forum (important is also to consider this hand was 4-ways on the flop). I think the articles I read by Jason Pohl have messed with my mind. Thanks for the input, all of you.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
