Weak Tight you say Mikel? - Page 7

BarronVangorToth · #61 09-28-2005, 04:27 PM

Agreed, not knowing the people involved, and from the description given, I think this is a bet on the river.

Factor in other factors - reads on the players - specific info from being there - some other tidbits - sure, this could be a case for checking.

But not from what is given, I don't think.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

skp · #62 09-28-2005, 04:50 PM

But is she saying the same thing as BK?

I didn't read her post as an example of her spidey sense going off and letting her hands follow what her brain is telling her (which is what BK didn't do). Rather, I read it as an illustration that generally speaking, she and this particular opponent of hers know each other's game so well that it can only mean that they are not being in the least bit deceptive against each other.

I mean, for Babe to know that this guy can only have JJ or QQ means that she also must know that he knows with certainty that she can only have QQ, KK, or AA (if she bets the river).

To me, that means that Babe is being too predictable and indeed that is what her opponent has said in this thread.

Ulysses · #63 09-28-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
3). If he can beat a 10 with an overpair less than KK that means he has exactly two holdings and they are JJ and QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the case and he never bluff checkraises, why on earth would you not bet here and fold to a raise?

Ulysses · #64 09-28-2005, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are right that QQ is probably the only hand I would pay you off with here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against such a predictable player, why are you calling with QQ here? Sounds like she can ONLY have TT-AA (if even that wide) when she bets the turn, and by the river, you lose to them all except tie w/ QQ.

Ulysses · #65 09-28-2005, 05:11 PM

Andy,

First off, you are being results oriented. Against this opponent's range and possible actions, sure in this instance she saved a bet, but she is not saving bets with this play, she is losing money with it.

As for the other post you cited, this was a case of a guy paying a bet to see what the other guy had to satisfy his ego and show that he was right. He admits that's what he was doing, and from a poker EV standpoint, a very bad move.

The reason the reactions are different is because pokerbabe is positioning her action as a good play, which it wasn't.

mike l. · #66 09-28-2005, 05:15 PM

dude i ripped him up on that thread, but only on the semantics of titling the post as he did. he deserves credit though for having the guts to post it knowing it was poorly played. this forum is best when it's part tutorial, part confessional.

one problem is the babe always defend her posts to the death even when nearly everyone says she's wrong.

PokerBabe(aka) · #67 09-28-2005, 10:48 PM

Hi Andy,

I also find it remarkable that my good plays are always discounted by many posters on this site.

Fortunately, I am not looking for approval.

LGPG

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

PokerBabe(aka) · #68 09-28-2005, 10:57 PM

skp,

No, I don't pay off a check raise on the river to this guy. Nope, uh uh....no way.

PokerBabe(aka) · #69 09-28-2005, 11:03 PM

Hi El D,

Thanks for the input.

Both you and sincity suggested this alternate play on the river. I could have bet/folded to a ch/raise but then I don't see his hand.

LGPG

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

PokerBabe(aka) · #70 09-28-2005, 11:08 PM

Hi skp

You are correct that knowing opponents means they are often "predictable". That makes it easy for me to check when I am behind and to bet when I am ahead. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Oh, wait....this is too easy isn't it?

Hey, maybe we can rendevous for lunch at the Indian restaurant and we can discuss the babe's play over some curry. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]