Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Medium-Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-14-2005, 08:32 PM
crosse91 crosse91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the kiddie pool.....
Posts: 136
Default Re: 97s.

i'm saying that there's not enough advertising value here to make it a key factor or even a benefit one should consider when playing the hand.

"Bad players think calling 3xBB a fishy play"
hopefully this isn't a dig at me....
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-14-2005, 08:38 PM
yvesaint yvesaint is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: sittin on my 6xbuy-in stack
Posts: 690
Default Re: 97s.

[ QUOTE ]


That's why it is a bluff. I can't beat anything that calls.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, which is even more important because its a stone cold pure bluff that needs the opponent to fold 68% of the time to break even. break. even.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-14-2005, 08:43 PM
Malachii Malachii is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 874
Default Re: 97s.

You just invested $88 with zero pot equity. Plays like these are collosal leaks, even though we all make them from time to time.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-14-2005, 08:46 PM
tdomeski tdomeski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 114
Default Re: 97s.

[ QUOTE ]
No read on opponent

[/ QUOTE ]

if you have no read there is very little value in bluffing (even on a board where he "may" have missed).

i would continue frequently raising these types of hands from the button, but, as drawing hands looking to build a pot with position. stab for $24 on the flop if you want, then give up. although the action you will get when you do hit the flop will make up for all the times you just check behind on flop (so i don't mind just checking behind on the flop and giving up).

did any of this make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-14-2005, 08:47 PM
pokerjoker pokerjoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 400
Default Re: 97s.

w/o reads that MP3 is loose passive pf and then weak on flop I just call here pf.

If ur going to bluff this flop u gotta pot it.
I recommend you just check/fold here though.

Given ur flop play I have no idea what u are trying to represent on the turn. If I bluff here I would do a post oak bluff if checked to on river. But this whole hand looks like one big dark tunnel bluff to me.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-14-2005, 08:48 PM
-Skeme- -Skeme- is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: S. Korea ($100 NL)
Posts: 2,694
Default Re: 97s.

[ QUOTE ]
hopefully this isn't a dig at me....

[/ QUOTE ]

How in God's name is this a shot at you? lol.


[ QUOTE ]
Plays like these are collosal leaks, even though we all make them from time to time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never do these. I would say 99% of the time here I have the nuts or very close to it. Figured opponent was weak, went with my read, and bet. I don't frequently jam all in blindly like this. :-/
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-14-2005, 08:55 PM
teamdonkey teamdonkey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: where am i?
Posts: 247
Default Re: 97s.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


That's why it is a bluff. I can't beat anything that calls.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, which is even more important because its a stone cold pure bluff that needs the opponent to fold 68% of the time to break even. break. even.

[/ QUOTE ]

risking $72 to win a $63 pot... my gorilla math puts this at 53% to break even.

Will he fold that often? If not, i think it's close, and you definately make up the difference in metagame. Saying noone pays attention is wrong... even at 25NL tables people notice when you bluff all in with 9 high.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:01 PM
FreakDaddy FreakDaddy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 651
Default Re: 97s.

Looks ok, but I'd bet a little more on flop. 2/3 I think is a slightly better amount. Turn looks good.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:03 PM
yvesaint yvesaint is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: sittin on my 6xbuy-in stack
Posts: 690
Default Re: 97s.

[ QUOTE ]



risking $72 to win a $63 pot... my gorilla math puts this at 53% to break even.


[/ QUOTE ]

63x - 135(1-x) = 0

63x - 135 + 135x = 0

198x = 135

x = .68

am i doing this right?

edit: wait i see my mistake, man im dumb. not losing 135, losing 72 ....gorilla math wins
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:05 PM
crosse91 crosse91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the kiddie pool.....
Posts: 136
Default Re: 97s.

[ QUOTE ]

How in God's name is this a shot at you? lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

not a clue. i was just confused.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.