3/6: Call-CR Blind defense with AA

[ QUOTE ]
Only one hand on that list is a realistic hand for villain. TT. As for preflop, there's a thread with extensive discussion about the call-cr blind defense method.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO TT and 99 are also realistic and there's an outside shot of A2s given that you have "no real read". Not that this should change your line... I was just pointing out that you don't have the 2nd nuts.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say here that I don't mind the call/c-r approach, but I think it's ill suited to pocket pairs.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only one hand on that list is a realistic hand for villain. TT. As for preflop, there's a thread with extensive discussion about the call-cr blind defense method.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO TT and 99 are also realistic and there's an outside shot of A2s given that you have "no real read". Not that this should change your line... I was just pointing out that you don't have the 2nd nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's very unlikely that 99 is raising the turn and calling a 3-bet. This would be a rather large mistake. A2s is quite a bit outside the range what most people raise from MP. Certainly those hands are more likely then the others but TT is the only hand on that list that is definitely in his range.

I've said elsewhere and I'll say here that I don't mind the call/c-r approach, but I think it's ill suited to pocket pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very unlikely that 99 is raising the turn and calling a 3-bet. This would be a rather large mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my bad, I didn't realize we were playing against a player who played mistake free poker.

Just kidding, man... I'm worried that I came across as a complete prick in my original response to this thread. I know most of the hands I listed aren't realistic, it's just that I started listing the hands that were beating us, and the list ended up being longer than I expected. But I still don't think you should dismiss a hand from an opponent's possible holdings just because his play would be a mistake with it.

If you never expected your opponents to make mistakes, there wouldn't be much reason to play poker.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's very unlikely that 99 is raising the turn and calling a 3-bet. This would be a rather large mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my bad, I didn't realize we were playing against a player who played mistake free poker.

Just kidding, man... I'm worried that I came across as a complete prick in my original response to this thread. I know most of the hands I listed aren't realistic, it's just that I started listing the hands that were beating us, and the list ended up being longer than I expected. But I still don't think you should dismiss a hand from an opponent's possible holdings just because his play would be a mistake with it.

If you never expected your opponents to make mistakes, there wouldn't be much reason to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it's impossible just unlikely. This guy seems, on the face of it, to have some idea what he's doing PF. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that he makes less large mistakes post flop then someone with LAG or LP stats on average. Not to mention that given his stats, this isn't the kind of post flop mistake he would be inclined to make since he looks a little weak tight so far.

[imported_leader]

He called my raise with QQ. MHIG

[krishanleong]

Perfect through river. Betting the river is the default. When I'm feeling like superman (or if I'm confident of a read) I'll check raise.

Krishan