|
|
#11
11-20-2005, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: do we like?
Without a read I like it. However, the more passive the opponent the more I like to bet because many wont raise the river with a flush and a paired board and if they do, it's clear you're beat.
|
|
#12
11-20-2005, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: do we like?
I like it. Any opponent, at 3/6 atleast, is bluffing that river if they dont have anything. The better players will bet second pair but probably not the passives. On the other hand the passives are more likely to have a monster imo. So in conclusion bet/fold vs passive opponents and check call TAGs/LAGs.
|
|
#13
11-20-2005, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: do we like?
[ QUOTE ]
Bet the river. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#14
11-20-2005, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: do we like?
I'm torn between check-calling the river and betting it. I think check-call is a better way to go though. Read dependent here.
|
|
#16
11-20-2005, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: do we like?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm torn between check-calling the river and betting it. I think check-call is a better way to go though. Read dependent here. [/ QUOTE ] why? [/ QUOTE ] If we have a pretty agro opponent, I agree with the check call. I like to induce from hands that would fold if we bet, and I think these opponents stab at the opportunity almost every time we check. We are also not losing value from betting, as most of the hands that he would of called with, he is value betting.
|
|
#18
11-20-2005, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: do we like?
[ QUOTE ]
yeah i just wanted him to explain why. [/ QUOTE ] Why?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
