|
|
#41
09-26-2005, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hand vs Sklansky
[ QUOTE ]
I'm about 95% confident you lost this hand. He's overly tight passive at limit hold em. I wouldn't even bet the river because with the J I don't see you getting called by A highs, though maaaaaybe AK. [/ QUOTE ] Right, the Jack is a bad card for me if I'm trying to get an ace high payoff because of it making pairs for JT and QJ [and QT straight now] which I could be semibluffing. Think you might be right about checking the river. 
|
|
#42
09-26-2005, 10:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand vs Sklansky
[ QUOTE ]
You might want to work on your game selection. [/ QUOTE ] I game select good online 99% of the time, so was willing to let it slide a bit in Vegas since it's such a rare trip for me and it's fun getting to play against famous players. Plus the main game was very good and was worth sticking it out for. Point taken though.
|
|
#45
09-26-2005, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand vs Sklansky
[ QUOTE ]
No way you can checkfold the turn. David could easily bet any hand there on a 998x board when the flop was 98x. [/ QUOTE ] Oops I meant to say check the river after he calls the turn bet.
|
|
#46
09-26-2005, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand vs Sklansky
The pair on the board keeps you from getting raised. If you check the river, he'd probably bet for value with KK. You'd almost have to call, especially when you didnt get raised on the turn. By betting yourself, more than likely you will only be called when you are beat, but not always. He might call with AK or AQ ok a small pocket pair, and since he might likely 3-bet what looks like a blind steal with these hands, it is just as or more likely he holds one of these hands. The real question is, what % of the time will he bluff bet a river with a hand you can beat. If he will bet only hands you cant beat and check down hands you can, then you are better off betting your own hand, with little fear of getting raised, although, when called, you are still a slight underdog to have the best hand, rather than check and call as an even bigger underdog, sincc he will not likely bet a worse hand. This is from his book Theory of Poker, on play on the river. It is a little more complicated than other straight forward plays, but I think it applies to your hand here on the river.
-j
|
|
#47
09-26-2005, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand vs Sklansky
[ QUOTE ]
Would A10o, KQo, and KJs enter the picture, not to mention some other edgier suited connector holdings? After all, you do have position. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#48
09-26-2005, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand vs Sklansky
[ QUOTE ]
Mason seemed very kind and cordial and said to david (who was in teh midst of wandering around not too far from mason) "hey david, this is decipher this from the boards." to which david replied "oh ,ok" and proceeded to shake my hand and continue wandering. Mason and i chatted briefly and then he to departed on kind terms. [/ QUOTE ] I met Mason @ the Wynn and was really drunk. I was with a few 2+2ers and basically just came up to him while he was seated in a NL game and was like "hey i'm sponger blahhhh here with bfealahahahahhh other 2+2ers, we're all big fans" and just emarassed the crap out of myself and walked away. Anyways, sorry to hijack the thread...
|
|
#50
09-27-2005, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand vs Sklansky
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Would A10o, KQo, and KJs enter the picture, not to mention some other edgier suited connector holdings? After all, you do have position. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Far be it that I think that everything I say is always going to be 100% on the money, but it's downright ludicrous to believe it's a fishy play to 3-bet from the button with those holdings against someone who very easily can be raising lighter than that. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
