This hand is boring

[DavidC]

I agree with what hte other guys have said. Check-call vs lags, bet vs passives, or check-fold, depending on their calling range.

The real question is if this is a bet-fold or a check-fold. It's certainly not a check-call.

--Dave.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what hte other guys have said. Check-call vs lags, bet vs passives, or check-fold, depending on their calling range.

The real question is if this is a bet-fold or a check-fold. It's certainly not a check-call.

--Dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly not a check-fold either. We have the best hand here easily >30% of the time.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what hte other guys have said. Check-call vs lags, bet vs passives, or check-fold, depending on their calling range.

The real question is if this is a bet-fold or a check-fold. It's certainly not a check-call.

--Dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly not a check-fold either. We have the best hand here easily >30% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what I'm talking about Redd.

Edit:

I haven't written the formula for what you should be doing here, but here's the basics:

KC if they'll bet more than they'll call, and they'll bet with hands that they would fold. This is particularly good if they will bluffraise you and make you fold the winner.

KF if they'll fold more hands than they'll call, and they'll only bet if they're ahead. Unless they'll call you with hands that they would have bet, in which case the combinations of getting those calls and seeing a showdown may make betting more attractive again.

BF if they won't bluffraise you often enough to justify calling, and they'll call with hands that they would check. This isn't entirely true... you want them to call quite a bit more often than you would initially think and bluff much less.

BC if they're so incredibly aggressive that they'll raise no matter what, and you're ahead of lots of their hands. This basically gets an extra bet from a lag.

Anyways, I'm not sure what we should do in this particular hand, as I haven't been playing much lately, but this is how you should think about it.

--Dave.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
KF if they'll fold more hands than they'll call, and they'll only bet if they're ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really challenge the second axiom here; I think that a wide range of hands are betting after seeing the past two streets get checked through, and all queens are heavily discounted for not seeing any previous action from them on the flop or turn. A better T is a possibility here, but IMO not good enough to justify a river fold.

I'm a little confused by axiom 1; it seems like a simplification to me. Shouldn't they need to call with losing hands less often than calling with winning hands to justify the check, assuming that axiom 2 is true?

edit: I see what you mean in the first axiom when taken in context with this:
[ QUOTE ]
Unless they'll call you with hands that they would have bet, in which case the combinations of getting those calls and seeing a showdown may make betting more attractive again.

[/ QUOTE ]
but I'd argue this is true almost 100% of the time.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, I'm not sure what we should do in this particular hand, as I haven't been playing much lately, but this is how you should think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well again this was my first hand at the table, but it looked fairly passive.
I actually had given up on the hand by the turn and was just waiting to fold, and didn't see the ten until I checked it through, heh.

A few rounds into it, I realized how passive the table actually was--people regularly limped and called down pocket Queens and Aces because they were bet into on undercard flops (usually by me, grr). About half the talbe had aggression factors under a tenth, and the table PFR was about 2%. I'm fairly sure that some of these folks would have let a queen check through, either through sheer passivity or as a FREAKING AWESOME slowplay.

Anyway, I called and was shown T9o. My 15BB challenge ended quickly today [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]