|
|
#13
08-03-2005, 11:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A sample hand from SSH
To Aarons long - and good - explanation you could add the chance that someone with a lower pair might fold when they should call because of the correct pot odds to improve to two pair. But they folded because we showed so much strenght with a turn raise that they suspect a very strong hand. A set for example, making them discount their outs to heavily (and therefore profitable for us).
|
|
#14
08-04-2005, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sample hand from SSH
[ QUOTE ]
To Aarons long - and good - explanation you could add the chance that someone with a lower pair might fold when they should call because of the correct pot odds to improve to two pair. But they folded because we showed so much strenght with a turn raise that they suspect a very strong hand. A set for example, making them discount their outs to heavily (and therefore profitable for us). [/ QUOTE ] Yes. What Aaron said, what xenthebrain said about being less likely to be bet into on the turn, and what you just said about overrepresenting your hand, scaring opponents into making what are actually BAD folds from their perspective (if they knew you had only one pair).
|
|
#17
09-13-2005, 09:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sample hand from SSH
Aaron,
Nice post. I agree 100% with the fact that HU, you are hoping that your opponent will call with improper odds. If the pot is multiway, this is not always true. If this was true, then, for a hand protection raise to be +EV, you would need to have the best hand. But a hand protection raise can be +EV as long as the expected increase in winning chances and the size of the pot makes it worthwhile. So in the rare cases where a hand protection raise is worthwile even though your hand is behind, you would actually hope that your opponents fold, because they won't lose enough of that money to you if they call incorrectly. Does this makes sense?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
