|
|
#31
07-05-2005, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: And another thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] First, my name is Doug, and I'm new here. I was thinking about the "passive" amending of this question, and I am wondering if I have discovered a "fancy play syndrome" leak in my play. I assume by passive, we also assume this player will fold to an ace (we know he has 8-9, thus he won't two pair--in practice we won't know this). In that case, we have 10 outs, not just 6. Thus, for about a price of a 5.5-1 call, I am getting about 4.5 to 1 to get my "winning" card--6 outs with the best hand, and 4 more aces where I think he will fold. In this line, I am calling the flop, and raising the turn bet when I improve or an ace hits--mind you, if I read him as truly "passive," it is likely he checks the ace unless he 2 pairs. In your opinion(s), in real practice, do I get him to fold enough on the ace to make this worth it, or do I leak here? [/ QUOTE ] Passive doesn't mean he's going to just lay something down. And, yes, I think that would be fps. What I was thinking in the amendment was that it would be better to raise the flop and take a "free" turn card. [/ QUOTE ] And when he 3-bets? 
|
|
#32
07-05-2005, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And another thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] First, my name is Doug, and I'm new here. I was thinking about the "passive" amending of this question, and I am wondering if I have discovered a "fancy play syndrome" leak in my play. I assume by passive, we also assume this player will fold to an ace (we know he has 8-9, thus he won't two pair--in practice we won't know this). In that case, we have 10 outs, not just 6. Thus, for about a price of a 5.5-1 call, I am getting about 4.5 to 1 to get my "winning" card--6 outs with the best hand, and 4 more aces where I think he will fold. In this line, I am calling the flop, and raising the turn bet when I improve or an ace hits--mind you, if I read him as truly "passive," it is likely he checks the ace unless he 2 pairs. In your opinion(s), in real practice, do I get him to fold enough on the ace to make this worth it, or do I leak here? [/ QUOTE ] Passive doesn't mean he's going to just lay something down. And, yes, I think that would be fps. What I was thinking in the amendment was that it would be better to raise the flop and take a "free" turn card. [/ QUOTE ] And when he 3-bets? [/ QUOTE ] I don't think a very passive player is 3 betting with 89o. At any rate, these scenarios were in the links that I posted in another post. Look up my "AK HU" post from last week and check out the links there. The articles go into the math here, and it's pretty interesting.
|
|
#33
07-05-2005, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And another thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] First, my name is Doug, and I'm new here. I was thinking about the "passive" amending of this question, and I am wondering if I have discovered a "fancy play syndrome" leak in my play. I assume by passive, we also assume this player will fold to an ace (we know he has 8-9, thus he won't two pair--in practice we won't know this). In that case, we have 10 outs, not just 6. Thus, for about a price of a 5.5-1 call, I am getting about 4.5 to 1 to get my "winning" card--6 outs with the best hand, and 4 more aces where I think he will fold. In this line, I am calling the flop, and raising the turn bet when I improve or an ace hits--mind you, if I read him as truly "passive," it is likely he checks the ace unless he 2 pairs. In your opinion(s), in real practice, do I get him to fold enough on the ace to make this worth it, or do I leak here? [/ QUOTE ] Passive doesn't mean he's going to just lay something down. And, yes, I think that would be fps. What I was thinking in the amendment was that it would be better to raise the flop and take a "free" turn card. [/ QUOTE ] And when he 3-bets? [/ QUOTE ] I don't think a very passive player is 3 betting with 89o. At any rate, these scenarios were in the links that I posted in another post. Look up my "AK HU" post from last week and check out the links there. The articles go into the math here, and it's pretty interesting. [/ QUOTE ] But the OP says he's "fairly aggressive"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#34
07-05-2005, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And another thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] First, my name is Doug, and I'm new here. I was thinking about the "passive" amending of this question, and I am wondering if I have discovered a "fancy play syndrome" leak in my play. I assume by passive, we also assume this player will fold to an ace (we know he has 8-9, thus he won't two pair--in practice we won't know this). In that case, we have 10 outs, not just 6. Thus, for about a price of a 5.5-1 call, I am getting about 4.5 to 1 to get my "winning" card--6 outs with the best hand, and 4 more aces where I think he will fold. In this line, I am calling the flop, and raising the turn bet when I improve or an ace hits--mind you, if I read him as truly "passive," it is likely he checks the ace unless he 2 pairs. In your opinion(s), in real practice, do I get him to fold enough on the ace to make this worth it, or do I leak here? [/ QUOTE ] Passive doesn't mean he's going to just lay something down. And, yes, I think that would be fps. What I was thinking in the amendment was that it would be better to raise the flop and take a "free" turn card. [/ QUOTE ] And when he 3-bets? [/ QUOTE ] I don't think a very passive player is 3 betting with 89o. At any rate, these scenarios were in the links that I posted in another post. Look up my "AK HU" post from last week and check out the links there. The articles go into the math here, and it's pretty interesting. [/ QUOTE ] But the OP says he's "fairly aggressive"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Some wires got crossed here as I made a couple scenarios in this thread. I agree that raising a "fairly aggressive" player here would be bad. Anyway, check out those links that other thread, you'll enjoy them.
|
|
#35
07-05-2005, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: KQo steal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In scenerio #1 I'd call the flop intending to raise most turns. Most "fairly aggressive" players back down when they get popped on 4th Street. The same cannot be said of their reaction to a flop raise. [/ QUOTE ] This guy ain't folding. This is a spew. [/ QUOTE ] Well, who is "this guy"? All I got is "semi-loose and fairly aggressive player".
|
|
#36
07-05-2005, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: And another thing
Thanks everyone! You are absolutely right that if he isn't folding to an ace (which a good player won't give me credit for in a steal position), this play is not worth it. Is this play still too expensive if the raise comes from 1 position earlier?
|
|
#37
07-05-2005, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: KQo steal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In scenerio #1 I'd call the flop intending to raise most turns. Most "fairly aggressive" players back down when they get popped on 4th Street. The same cannot be said of their reaction to a flop raise. [/ QUOTE ] This guy ain't folding. This is a spew. [/ QUOTE ] Well, who is "this guy"? All I got is "semi-loose and fairly aggressive player". [/ QUOTE ] He's a guy who flopped top pair.
|
|
#38
07-05-2005, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: KQo steal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In scenerio #1 I'd call the flop intending to raise most turns. Most "fairly aggressive" players back down when they get popped on 4th Street. The same cannot be said of their reaction to a flop raise. [/ QUOTE ] This guy ain't folding. This is a spew. [/ QUOTE ] Well, who is "this guy"? All I got is "semi-loose and fairly aggressive player". [/ QUOTE ] He's a guy who flopped top pair. [/ QUOTE ] Well in that case... Damn, I fold PF.
|
|
#39
07-05-2005, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: KQo steal
If he checks, check through intending to raise any non A turn. I love this move, as the villian will think you are trying to trap them for two bets on the turn. If he bets, I call intending to raise any J or better turn card.
|
|
#40
07-05-2005, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: KQo steal
I call.
My reasoning is this. I assume 1/2 Blind structure. I assume a regular good player who gonna bet flop and turn regardless of card that hits turn and he will also call down with his pair. If he doesn't play like this he will loose out to agression HU severely. It is 5.5 SB when it is my turn. How many bets will I get out of him if I hit turn? He will still bet turn and I raise it and he calls me down. Some people might even reraise me but lets forget that option. He will put in 4SB at turn and another 2SB at the river. That is 11.5 SB total. We have 6 outs on turn and we got 46(he has a pair right) cards in deck. This leads us to a clear call. He got a redraw on river with 5 cards but it is still a call. In a real world scenario we won't know if we are dominated but we also don't know if he will bet turn too. Sometimes he will let us have a free card if he hasn't hit anything yet and we might be able to pick up the pot at the turn unimproved at times. Well, please give me some input in my thought process if there are things I don't consider.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
