|
|
#31
06-23-2005, 09:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reply and results
[ QUOTE ]
A rock check-3bets the flop and bets the turn. I'm saying that 90% of the time he makes this call or 3-bets you thus from a odds standpoint your raise isn't good. [/ QUOTE ] How many rocks have you seen limp JJ or QQ UTG? Of course all those other rocks you're talking about call or raise an overwhelming percentage of the time. That's my read, too. None of them were playing in this hand, so basing your read on them isn't good. 
|
|
#32
06-23-2005, 10:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reply and results
I still think what you did was a successful semi-bluff, in this instance.
But it is very safe to say that you can't bluff rocks. They usually only bet and go along with very strong hands. That you got this rock to fold is an exception to the rule, not the rule. That's why they're called 'rocks'. Because they don't budge when they have a hand. You may be describing a 'mouse', who is weak-tight-passive. When they bet, get out of the way. Some of these terms may be just what I call them due to PT icons. KO
|
|
#33
06-23-2005, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I tried it, anybody like it
[ QUOTE ]
Turn: (8.50 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font> SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">rock bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB folds (so far, so good), rock ? [/ QUOTE ] Let's see, you posted the hand and based on my read of you that means it should read "rock folds." Do I win? I have come to like the semi-bluff, partly as a result of reading TOP and partly as a result of a discussion from last week in SS. And one very important part of doing it successfully is picking your spots. You're facing SB with 2 cold on the turn, and he might've been chasing a blind-special draw on the flop. Fine. But you've also got what you read as a tight-passive player limp-3-betting a raggedy flop. Your raising him on the turn doesn't change the fact that he's "passive" and, in the unlikely event that your "best explanation" is correct and he's got QQ/JJ, he'll go back into his shell but still show you down for another 2BB in what is now an 11BB pot. So, a few questions for you, that might be answered later in the thread, which I'll read now. One, how many hands have you played against this Villan, i.e. how strong isyour "read"? Two, what's your plan if he caps the turn; if he calls the turn and leads the river; if he calls the turn and checks the river? And, three, assuming my answer to your question is correct, have you updated your read and if so to what?
|
|
#35
06-23-2005, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reply and results
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The advice to not be results oriented has to do with moves that fly in the face of statistics we can measure, like going for a 20-1 shot in a pot that is not even giving 10-1. IMO is not a very good statistical argument. [/ QUOTE ] Sure it is. It's saying don't use the results of a limited (in this case just one) sample size to extrapolate results over the entire "field". [/ QUOTE ] This is the field, how will he respond to a raise in this situation with his reads on me. He folds. You could say it was a really close call for him and so 50 percent of the time he folds and 50 percent he calls, which is still fine since I'm getting better than 4-1. This isn't like the uncertainty of a draw, you can't say that sure he folded this time but 90 percent of the time he wouldn't do that. [/ QUOTE ] As I read this, I get the impression that you weren't really that interested in what we thought about this hand, but you wanted to prove something or another about your play. The original statement reads "Why should I make this play? Because villain did what I hoped he would do." That's precisely results-oriented thinking. The way you respond to "Why should I make this play?" is an analysis of stuff that happened *BEFORE* villain acts. Say something about his preflop/flop play and his tendencies. Don't tell me what he actually did and use that as evidence that you were right. I also get the impression that you're using a different dictionary than the rest of us.
|
|
#36
06-23-2005, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reply and results
[ QUOTE ]
As I read this, I get the impression that you weren't really that interested in what we thought about this hand, but you wanted to prove something or another about your play. The original statement reads "Why should I make this play? Because villain did what I hoped he would do." That's precisely results-oriented thinking. The way you respond to "Why should I make this play?" is an analysis of stuff that happened *BEFORE* villain acts. Say something about his preflop/flop play and his tendencies. Don't tell me what he actually did and use that as evidence that you were right. I also get the impression that you're using a different dictionary than the rest of us. [/ QUOTE ] nh
|
|
#37
06-23-2005, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I tried it, anybody like it
In general I would not try a play like this.
However, if you have a very good read on this player and know that 1. You are behind on this turn and 2. He is capable of folding a better hand on the turn if you raise - then I think the play has some merit in this very specific situation. It only needs to work 25% of the time to be profitable. What is the hand range that you put him? I know you suspect it could be QQ or JJ, but what other possibilities are there? TT, AT, KT, ...?
|
|
#39
06-23-2005, 12:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reply and results
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A rock check-3bets the flop and bets the turn. I'm saying that 90% of the time he makes this call or 3-bets you thus from a odds standpoint your raise isn't good. [/ QUOTE ] How many rocks have you seen limp JJ or QQ UTG? Of course all those other rocks you're talking about call or raise an overwhelming percentage of the time. That's my read, too. None of them were playing in this hand, so basing your read on them isn't good. [/ QUOTE ] how many rocks have you seen check/3bet with just JJ they have tight standards for betting, let alone c/3betting most of the time he has a big hand here
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
