|
|
#51
11-12-2005, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Would YOU bet out here?
[ QUOTE ]
there is no correct answer, because this is all based on assumptions. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. To believe this, you have to believe that there are virtually no correct plays in poker, because after all, it's ALL based on assumptions. In this hand, checking is the best play against almost all opponents and virtually regardless of your image. Look, - if he's aggressive, you should check because he'll bet almost every time - if he's passive, checking is not bad as you give him the opportunity to make a hand on the turn. further, if the flop goes check-check, he's more likely to think you are stealing when you bet the turn. - if you are viewed as tight, you should check because a bet will cause him to fold - if you are viewed laggy, you can check intending to raise. In the event that the flop gets checked through, your turn bet will look highly suspicious. Only against the most loose and passive opponents, who will not bet the flop but will call with all kinds of overcards, should you bet. And how many of these players are playing online short-handed games? In my experience, the average player is way too aggressive to bet the flop here. -eric 
|
|
#52
11-12-2005, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would YOU bet out here?
[ QUOTE ]
The problem I see in checking the flop is that if they bet and you just call ... [/ QUOTE ] Who said anything about just calling a bet? I'd raise every time, as lots of players will now peel with overcards having bet them. my 2 cents. eric -eric
|
|
#53
11-12-2005, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would YOU bet out here?
i basically was backing down there. i do agree with you that checking is correct. it should read more like, "well, you can assume whatever you want to make betting correct, but i don't think it is." sort of a poker euphemism.
nice post though, i agree with all of it. cool of you to spend some time slumming it here.. haha
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
