|
|
|
|
#1
08-01-2005, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 50/100 Deep Stack Weird River
Hi Bruiser,
I mess up the bet sizes sometimes too, but they matter a lot in this hand, I think. With the bet sizes you posted (450/pot/pot), the pot should be 9K by the river, with icebreaker having just called a 3K turn bet. If you made it 250 with KK (seems strange 5-handed after a limper) and bet pot/pot, the pot would be about 5.5K. Anyway, I don't think he has a straight, and I think you should bet and probably call a raise. If the pot was 5.5K with you having 15K behind, that would make me lean somewhat more toward not betting, or not calling a check-raise if you did bet. Here's why: If he called 3K on the turn with a draw, I think he'd tend to lead on the river if he hit the nuts. If he just had an OESD, he'd need to get 15K total not counting his 3K call to turn a profit. He knows this, right? To do this, he might check-raise. But, he'd be taking a hell of a risk that you'd check it behind, given two things: he's played his hand like a big draw, and you've bet your hand so straightforwardly from start to finish that many players will put you on a somewhat weaker hand than a set (like AK, which you'd obviously check behind with on the river). So, I think that he's more apt to lead out with the nuts, hoping you'll raise, but at least getting something when you call. If he had a bigger draw like Tc8c or QcTc, he wouldn't need to recoup as much on the river (as only a 2 to 1 dog or so), and again, a straight value bet would make more sense. Now, with the smaller pot (5.5K) and bet sizes (1800 on the turn), he might do a lot of things, since he has much more headroom in your 15K stack. But still, I think the above tendencies apply to most decent players. So, I think his check is genuine. I think he has a fairly good Top Pair or 2 Pair, but he suspects it may not be good. Still, he can't bring himself to lay it down, so he's trying to control the pot. Or, there's an outside shot he has a smaller set, and puts you squarely on a made hand that's dead against a set (AK), and definitely not on a bit draw (AcQc). In this case, though, he'd also lead on the river most likely. I like a bet here of less than the pot; Diablo said 3500, which sounds just right. But, I'm not sure I'd fold to a big check-raise; I know you couldn't against me. I don't know icebreaker, though you guys seem to be implying that he would rarely bluff-check-raise on the river (even less than the avg player, which itself is fairly rare). If one was ever going to try it, though, this looks like a good spot. Why? If he puts you on a made hand (but something that didn't just hit that 9 yourself), then he knows you must fear that card. If you bet it after he checks, it doesn't really make sense. So, a good player may see this, and put you all-in. But, knowing this, you should be prepared to call. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me... 
|
|
#2
08-01-2005, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 Deep Stack Weird River
ceroz, sorry about the bet sizes, i am embarrased to say i don't remember exactly how the hand went down. i'm pretty sure i bet pot on the flop and turn trying to build a big pot with the nuts deep stacked. maybe i raised preflop, and he was in the blind, then the pot size on the turn was something like 7,200. ceroz, as to his leading on the river if he hit i disagree. this is kind of a bogus meta game reason cop out that you can't say much to, but i am an aggresive value better. but mainly, if he hit a straight pot 7,000 and 17,000 behind it seems to me that most people would just check and pray to stack off. also, straights are always a kind of disguised draw.
mr. flynn i kind of agree with you now about betting pot. i remember making this mistake before about not realzing "hey he's a tight caller, he called my pot bets twice, maybe he does have a good hand". betting a midway size value bet of 3500 like you say diablo seems the worst option not accomplishing any clear objective, half way between the reasoning of the pot size bet and underbet.
|
|
#3
08-01-2005, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 Deep Stack Weird River
[ QUOTE ]
betting a midway size value bet of 3500 like you say diablo seems the worst option not accomplishing any clear objective, half way between the reasoning of the pot size bet and underbet. [/ QUOTE ] The objective is clear. Maximize (%called x betsize).
|
|
#4
08-01-2005, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 Deep Stack Weird River
but against what hands? matt flynn says he is a tight caller so he could have a very solid hand and call a pot bet. okay that makes sense. maybe he some how got to the river with a marginal holding and since he's not a loose caller won't pay off a medium sized value bet but will pay off a tiny one just because of huge pot odds. or if he has nothing there's a small chance of inducing that bluff c/r. what hands is your line targeted against?
|
|
#5
08-01-2005, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 Deep Stack Weird River
my points were predicated. i did not say ice is a tight caller, just that if he is i would pot it.
i think these bigger online games train us to underbet for value, because against many opponents there can be a huge spread in %call between even 2/3 pot and pot. it's a weirdism of online poker. i also think the tactic is overused by tighter players against many opponents, because unless that %call spread is >33% one must also take value from being able to bluff underbet to make it worthwhile. if you do not bluff much, or if you camoflauge in other ways or just get away with microbluffs, you should be potting it more against most players. plus there can be tremendous information loss if you've always got it when you pot it. just my pi cents. matt
|
|
#8
08-02-2005, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 Deep Stack Weird River
Villian played this badly.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
