|
|
#12
07-24-2005, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I don\'t understand MTTs
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand bridgemaniacs isolation play in this case. There is just no chance that the BB would be raising allin with a hand that does not beat Q9s. What is going on in these peoples minds? Thanks, Jonathan [/ QUOTE ] They were suited!! 
|
|
#13
07-24-2005, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t understand MTTs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I just don't understand bridgemaniacs isolation play in this case. There is just no chance that the BB would be raising allin with a hand that does not beat Q9s. What is going on in these peoples minds? Thanks, Jonathan [/ QUOTE ] They were suited!! [/ QUOTE ] OK...Now I see....Got it! Thanks all for the replies. Suerte, Jonathan
|
|
#14
07-24-2005, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t understand MTTs
Hand 1
Here's the thinking: In any early level (much less a freeroll) when it's cheap to see a flop, the trash hands trap the big one pair hands. Simple as that. (Later on, the big hands trap the blind stealers). Your little raise did nothing but build a pot, and once there was 1 caller, then the rest were getting pot odds. If you want to protect KK against a field in the first level, you have to raise more than that. Hand 2 There was 500 in the pot. You raised it 850 to 1350. UTG was getting 1350:850 or 1.6:1 on the call. If he figures you for AKo (& no clubs), he is 1.6:1 to win the hand - an even money bet. If you have 88-22, its a coin flip. So, he wants to get heads up and take his chances. Thus the raise. As it turns out, you had AcKc, and he was 2:1 dog, so he was getting the worst of it vis a vis pot odds. What is wrong with the play is that while he was getting about the right price for 2 live cards, he could easily be dominated (AQ, KQ, QJ, A9, AA-99). So, he needs a little better pot odds than 1.6:1 to make this play. He probably needs 2:1. If he was getting 2:1, it would have been a reasonable play, considering the fact he has 1000 chips if he misses.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
