98s.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd also raise the flop more, he's a tight player who limped UTG and then led a 765 flop, he's got a good hand in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good hand in this spot isn't a small overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

My two comments aren't contradictory. Not only do they occur in different spots in the hand, I also said that by the river a small overpair or AA is consistent with the opponent's line, not most likely. Snide remarks like yours are really pointless if you actually want to discuss the merits of the hand, otherwise don't bother posting it.

-SmileyEH

Uh, a 15/6 limping UTG+1 after an UTG limper is consistant with AA?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Villain wasn't the utg limper, he limped AFTER an UTG limper in UTG+1. If you want to discuss the hand, at least look at what is going on in it.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, a 15/6 limping UTG+1 after an UTG limper is consistant with AA?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Villain wasn't the utg limper, he limped AFTER an UTG limper in UTG+1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen it done...regardless, take AA out of his hand range and it's still a call on the river.

-SmileyEH

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
Snide remarks like yours are really pointless if you actually want to discuss the merits of the hand, otherwise don't bother posting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't a snide remark. It was a legit comment about the possible holdings of Villain. I don't see how you can both put him on a "good hand" on the flop, which I don't consider a small overpair to be, while putting him on a different holding as the hand progresses. You've seen every street now, put him on a hand for good, or at least try and make it clear which street your read is for.

Aces in this spot is ludicrous.


[ QUOTE ]
I've seen it done...regardless, take AA out of his hand range and it's still a call on the river.


[/ QUOTE ]

And what does he have? The small overpair that can stand raises 4x his current lead and then lead again on the turn? That's definitely possible if he thinks I am bluffing, but I doubt he does. 88 is about all I see here. Does a PFR of 6 raise TT and up from this spot? I know I usually do and my PFR is the same.

I guess we'll never know. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you can both put him on a "good hand" on the flop, which I don't consider a small overpair to be, while putting him on a different holding as the hand progresses.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was what I was getting at. If you don't adjust your reads as the hand progresses you'll get yourself in trouble. Don't get married to a hand, or a read.
On the flop a tight player bet in a multiway flop on an all low card flop. Right there I want to maximize value from a set because it's very likely he has that hand. You made a just under pot raise and the villian calls. Now it really doesn't look he has a set, wouldn't a set 3bet here to insure action from two pair, and to protect against a semibluffing type hand? Now the turn, he bets small when the board pairs. Sure this could be a boat, but it's also likely that he is making a pseudo blocking bet with 88 again to defend against your possible blocking bet on the river. Now he bets again on the river, you're getting a good price in a pot where your hand is (justly) underrepresented. So I say again I like a call.

-SmileyEH

[beset7]

I think this thread is sufficient evidence that using pt stats and the action in this cannot definitively say you are behind often enough to make folding getting that good of a price the correct move. Reads > math? Yes. But your read in this case is a statistically unreliable small chunk of PT data and some wierd maybe weak, maybe strong type action. You have to know that in a theoretical vacumn those stats and this action just aren't going to be sufficient to justfy folding the river for that price to most poker players.

FWIW, when a tight preflop player is willing to give me action on this flop I gas it hard and no board pairing minus major pot bet type action is keeping me from show down. Flame away! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[odawg09090]

This is one of the worser folds I've seen. It's almost horrible.

I would definitely call, but I don't really have a problem with a fold. I'm not familiar with full ring stats, but for 6 max, those stats would indicate a set miner. It looks like you are getting value bet by a set that boated up. Possibly weak lead on turn and river praying to get raised?

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
I would definitely call, but I don't really have a problem with a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with a fold is that he is good way more than 23% of the time, here.

[greygoo]

If you people put so much faith in stats, why don't you take a look at his WSD, which is 39%. Don't you think that set-miners would have a higher percentage of winning showdowns?

This fold is terrible. This is 200NL. Villain is not even showing much strength. You would think that on a board like that he would try to extract more value out of FH.