|
|
|
|
#2
12-07-2005, 04:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $55 bubble hand.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you should be playing the $50s if you are seriously considering calling here. Then again what do I know, I don't play the $50s myself. [/ QUOTE ] It's quite correct to call against any two so if that is in fact his read and it is correct with a reasonable degree of accurcay then a call can become correct. I think an opponent like this may not even exist at the 55's however. 
|
|
#3
12-07-2005, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $55 bubble hand.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure you should be playing the $50s if you are seriously considering calling here. Then again what do I know, I don't play the $50s myself. [/ QUOTE ] It's quite correct to call against any two so if that is in fact his read and it is correct with a reasonable degree of accurcay then a call can become correct. I think an opponent like this may not even exist at the 55's however. [/ QUOTE ] Well, right, this whole hand is essentially a question about UTG's likely range. I think we agree that virtually no one is pushing anything close to any 2 UTG here.
|
|
#4
12-07-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $55 bubble hand.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not sure you should be playing the $50s if you are seriously considering calling here. Then again what do I know, I don't play the $50s myself. [/ QUOTE ] It's quite correct to call against any two so if that is in fact his read and it is correct with a reasonable degree of accurcay then a call can become correct. I think an opponent like this may not even exist at the 55's however. [/ QUOTE ] Well, right, this whole hand is essentially a question about UTG's likely range. I think we agree that virtually no one is pushing anything close to any 2 UTG here. [/ QUOTE ] christ, i don't think so. something tells me that unless villain's range looks like [2-7]x[2-7] (all combos of cards taken from 2-7) you shouldn't be calling here. a few other snide comments: 1) you're right, he shouldn't be playing the 50s, he should be playing higher so i can get a piece! LOLLERCAUST!!!ELEVEN! 2) he posted the hand because he wanted to know if his fold was a good fold, duh? 3) this is a really easy fold. 4) nash equilibria are, in general, not a great thing to use in poker.
|
|
#5
12-07-2005, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $55 bubble hand.
4) nash equilibria are, in general, not a great thing to use in poker.
This made my day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#6
12-07-2005, 04:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $55 bubble hand.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you should be playing the $50s if you are seriously considering calling here. Then again what do I know, I don't play the $50s myself. [/ QUOTE ] Youd be VERY supprised at some of the horrible play. FWIW, I obviously folded (not that it matters). I did however want to know if you feel an opponent is pushing any2, would a call be correct given stack/blind size.
|
|
#7
12-07-2005, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $55 bubble hand.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure you should be playing the $50s if you are seriously considering calling here. Then again what do I know, I don't play the $50s myself. [/ QUOTE ] Youd be VERY supprised at some of the horrible play. FWIW, I obviously folded (not that it matters). I did however want to know if you feel an opponent is pushing any2, would a call be correct given stack/blind size. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough, sorry if that came off the wrong way.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
