|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: bottom set
As I said I think I would have called too without the time to go through everything like we have. So ultimately what do you think? Does he have enough two-pair hands here to make the call good? It seems like after going through it it looks like it might be a fold.
O yeah, A9 does probably seem odd since the 9 came on turn. What about A2, A3 maybe 23. Well, anyway good thing he had the nuts on the turn and not one of the other sets [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: bottom set
[ QUOTE ]
My image should be pretty solid... but as I said, we had been playing six-handed leading up to this, and now it's four-handed so that may change some things. This guy wasn't a nutjob and he wasn't going to be building a pot out of position with a marginal hand... maybe AK is enough for him to checkraise in a four-handed game on this flop, but I don't expect to see him with A9 or 99 or some of the other hands that people have mentioned... I called his flop raise thinking "holy hell, I flopped a set four-handed and I'm getting action!" His turn bet still didn't worry me obviously, and I tried to build the pot. When he came back over the top of that, I thought "damn, there's nothing I can beat that he would play this aggressively," which was followed quickly by "omg, I have a set in a four-handed game on a ragged board, let's double up!" So I went ahead and called him, and I doubled up too, because his 54o was no goot against my rivered boat. [/ QUOTE ] thats hot... rj |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: bottom set
*yawn* standard?
The only thing is, I would have reraised his check-raise as not to potentially lose my action if a 4 or 5 comes on the turn. Garland |
|
|