|
|
#71
05-06-2005, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you open-limp on the button, your IQ is 14
[ QUOTE ]
This looks like a definite bet on the river to me, even though I agree that probably over 50% of the time he calls, we are beaten. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Ferguson calls a bet here "The Worst Play in Poker" Although in his other article he lays into open-limpers pretty hard too. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] 
|
|
#72
05-06-2005, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you open-limp on the button, your IQ is 14
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is a weak ace a common button open limping hand? [/ QUOTE ] He open-limped pf on the button. It wouldn't shock me if he turned over 2 UNO cards. [/ QUOTE ] lmao
|
|
#74
05-06-2005, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you open-limp on the button, your IQ is 14
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think betting is the worst of your river options. Either check call or check fold depending on the opponent. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. I think check-folding is awful against an unknown [/ QUOTE ] Someone who open limps is probably passive no? I don't see the button bluffing that often. More than 1 in 5 maybe, but not enough to make folding a worse mistake than betting. [/ QUOTE ] all types of people open limp from the button. some people do it as a slowplay. some people are 50/15 and just like limping a lot. some people are passive but love to bluff. some people have lucky hands but don't want to raise them. thinking he's apssive because he limped is not a safe assumption.
|
|
#75
05-07-2005, 06:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you open-limp on the button, your IQ is 14
Pokerbob is a special kind of funny. That line about "two uno cards" was wicked sick. In a good way.
|
|
#76
05-07-2005, 07:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you open-limp on the button, your IQ is 14
People make the dumbest 'peel-one' calls on the flop. He could have easily picked up a straight or flush draw on the turn. I would lean toward check-calling.
Opponents like this one aren't given to making rational decisions. He's open-limped from the button, then called twice in a row, presumably without much of a hand. I can picture the wheels turning after you check; He starts to panic that the only way his 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] can win the pot is if he fires at the river. I agree with sthief, labeling him as passive and assuming he won't bet any worse hands is a mistake.
|
|
#77
05-07-2005, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you open-limp on the button, your IQ is 14
[ QUOTE ]
labeling him as passive and assuming he won't bet any worse hands is a mistake. [/ QUOTE ] FWIW, there is a HUGE difference between: 1) He is passive and won't bet a worse hand 2) The probability that he is passive (given the information that we have) is such that he will not be bluffing at at a frequency that makes the check-call +EV
|
|
#78
05-08-2005, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you open-limp on the button, your IQ is 14
There's a difference between passive and defeatist, though. A lot of opponents play passively until there isn't any hope of making a hand, panic, then bluff when checked to.
Personally, I think there's a lot fewer losers that he'll call a bet with here than winners he would bet. With the passive read, it makes him less likely to value bet a lot of medium strength hands here that beat us. If this is the case, then he'll rarely bet. Most of the times he does, we'll be ahead. thus check/calling > betting, in my opinion
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
