River disaster - Page 2

Andy B · #11 12-12-2005, 02:19 AM

You're behind. Yes, you probably have outs, but really not very many. It's not like the other guy can't have trips, is it? That tournament was pretty tight throughout. I know I'd be raising with split Fours and a low kicker in that spot. You have almost no shot at low. The other guy has seen you call a raise and then catch an Ace, and yet he bets into you. I don't think he's going to be moved off of his hand easily, and I'm more than a little surprised that your river bluff worked.

So you agree that third, fifth, and sixth are easy folds? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

#12 12-12-2005, 02:41 AM

What's your point? Bad play sometimes works in tourneys, of course it does, and especially late in them. Next topic...

jon_1van · #13 12-12-2005, 02:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The other guy has seen you call a raise and then catch an Ace, and yet he bets into you

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most automatic of autobets. It yields no information about the hand.

Sixth is a clear call if I assume he has a busted low.

jon_1van · #14 12-12-2005, 02:53 AM

This hand is not supposed to be held up to a high standard of "look my play is awesome"

I am merely pointing out that I think tourney play should be VERY different from ring play.

Look at the hand greenage posted. In ring I don't steal, and greenage wouldn't call a raise. Yet because of the setting odd plays start to happen more frequently. And many standard ring game assumptions break down. For instance, the 4 is more likely to raise this hand as a steal.....because people are "tighter" in tourneys

Hauser_III · #15 12-12-2005, 05:57 PM

My question is, what did seat 8 have to begin with? I don't think he's on a straight steal on 3rd, as he's staring at the two biggest stacks on the table. I hate trying to steal against stacks that are so much bigger. If the 4th street bet was a continuation of the straight steal, then he's got big stones, because he's looking at two very good low boards with scoop potential. There's no way he's got stones that big, though, because if he did, I don't think he would have backed off on 7th. The check on 7th is too weak for somebody that would be able to bet a naked pair of 4's into those boards and stacks on 4th.

So, he should have had some kind of a hand. Three babies? If so, why's he betting 5th and 6th? And 4th, for that matter. Small buried pair, with maybe a two-flush? Very possible, but that means he folded two small pair on 7th, which is a very incorrect decision given the size of the pot and the pot odds at that point. Straight draw? Not based on 5th and 6th. Flush draw? Again, not based on 5th and 6th. Large buried pair? Again, not with the fold on 7th. Two paints, say AK in the hole, and a 4 up? That's a horrendous hand, unless it's a 3-flush.

I don't know, the more I type this out, the more I'm starting to agree it was a straight steal, and he just lost his nerve on 7th. Moral: if you're going to steal, stay aggressive.