Outplayed

[J_V]

I talked to this guy later. He said he folds to a four-bet.

It was also clear that this kid is a better player than anyone i'd ever met, which was sort've discouraging.

[Steve Giufre]

J V,


Just wondering if you would ever vary your flop play with a check here. I've played a bit of 80-160 lately, and one thing I've noticed is that I usually the only one who will check a lot of these ugly flops when I miss, and I'm facing more than one oppenent.

I like the turn raise, I agree his lead out is rarely gonna be three eights. I assume that if you had played with this oppenent a bit more, you might have been able to grab some more chips on the turn, and trust your origanal read and follow through with the four bet.

Also, when he three bet you, do you think he was trying to get you off a better hand, or he just put you on some other no pair hand, and thought he was still in the lead? Interstingly, since both are possible, I guess he doesnt have to be sure which is the case for his three bet to be correct.

[turnipmonster]

nyc?

--turnipmonster

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to be honest, I was shocked at how good some players played. Not that the 2-4 and 80 aren't beatable, just that the super-sharks have a big advantage on me. I used to think the best internet player was the best player in the world - I don't think that is true anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

when daniel negreauneau used to post on 2+2, he talked a lot about 100-200 players being a level below winning 300-600 players. actually had a big argument with sklansky about it.

at any rate, I would bet lederer, harman etc could crush most 80 players.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I talked to this guy later. He said he folds to a four-bet.

It was also clear that this kid is a better player than anyone i'd ever met, which was sort've discouraging.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he folds to a 4 bet, given that there's 10.5 big bets (if I counted right) in the pot, he'd have to be right over 90% of the time. Don't know how he could be that accurate and/or know that much about your play. And that's if he had NO CHANCE to spike a card on the river that would win him the pot. Ok even if he decides that he'll have to call two more BBs to keep you honest, and he believes that an A or K has ZERO CHANCE of being good if he spikes one(which is silly IMO), he would have to be right over 86% of the time. Not much difference between 86% and 92% as I doubt if there are many who can estimate that accurately. FWIW the combined chances that the nut nothing is good and if not that an Ace or King will be good if it hits on the river at least some percentage of the time, makes folding to a 4 bet a bad play IMO. Therefore if he was telling the truth (which I doubt btw), no offense I can't see why he's such a great player. I may have missed something here so if I did I appreciate the feedback.

[astroglide]

"bad" can go both ways as an adjective