[censored] yea!! (LC)

[ QUOTE ]
CO has him covered (each has over 1.5 buy-ins total), what does he do here if CO pushes all in on the flop after it's been raised?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold.

KhQh

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, my line looks similar with this hand if I'm in a tournament...FAR from the bubble.

And I never said his play was "wrong". I just wanted to know what he was thinking on the flop, after the raise.

It seems like he played it like a limit hand (except for that fact that he'd have 3-bet it on the flop.) Not-so-great flush draw + gut-shot... is that really a monster holding on the flop after a bet and raise? When the original bettor has you covered?

I just think he needs to discount the value of his flush here, that's all. Obviously, he can make the nuts here (only with the straight), and yet, even on the river, his straight isn't the nuts.

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
KhQh

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, then why call with suited connectors in the first place if you're going to be afraid of a higher flush draw everytime you you hit?

[crosse91]

while this might look atrocious-Maniac/Retard CO didn't reraise. He was very much a calling station. Occasionally he'd push-but it would only be an open push. Through a 100 hand i had not seen him reraise when he was reraised. And to the guy worrying about my flush outs, this hand was very simple to play. I had a gut shot and flush draw. From the flop action and the fact that level-headed villian limped in made my reads super easy. I knew i was against a set from the ep reraiser and lord knows what from maniac. Honestly i expected something around what i was shown. I was near postive that my flush outs were good and the 10 was definately the winner. I was only afraid of the board pairing-with all the doom and gloom responses (Fear KQ???) that no one mentioned how obvious the set here is and how i didn't want the board to pair, not a heart to fall.

[crosse91]

i just can't be afraid of k-q of hearts here, it would be playing too afraid. I'm afraid that if someone did have k-q of hearts i'm [censored] and i'm paying off.

Sounds good.

Like I said, I play 25NL not 400 NL

[TheWorstPlayer]

Well none of this info was included in the OP so it looked like a terrible call. Sure, if you know that CO will pay out like an ATM and that the raiser has a set and will also pay you off, and that CO won't re-raise, and that all of your outs are good, then it's a fine call. Plenty of implied odds in that case. But I really don't see how you can know all those things. What if CO has top set and the flop raiser has NFD? Then you're screwed royally.

[ QUOTE ]
But I really don't see how you can know all those things. What if CO has top set and the flop raiser has NFD? Then you're screwed royally.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the point I was trying to make. Not only do you lose a buy-in, but you could lose over 1.5 buy-ins on one hand. All I'm sayin'

[crosse91]

i am screwed, but do you honestly think that a 70/35/1 isn't raising jacks in the co? ( i don't know if included his stats in the initial post) Also, how often in full ring is suited a-x limping from ep from a very tight tag?? His play reeks of set, and i read it as such. If i was wrong then i lose alot of money obviously.

[crosse91]

Usually that is the case, this is that one hand in 10000 where you have just about perfect reads and the perfect hand to collect. Usually this is a very scary hand, and i don't argue that, it was just very special circumstances.