|
|
#22
12-15-2005, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
Let's say you get called 50% of the time and you're a 2.5-1 dog on average (when you get called). I think this is very generous. I don't think the numbers are that good for you but let's go with them!
If you fold you lose $12. If you push: 50% of the time you win $67 14.3% of the time you win $197 35.7% of the time you lose $142 ------------------------------------- average win of $11 again, the numbers probably are not this good for you but i think the play is fine as long as you don't do it very often. 
|
|
#26
12-15-2005, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you get called 50% of the time and you're a 2.5-1 dog on average (when you get called). I think this is very generous. I don't think the numbers are that good for you but let's go with them! If you fold you lose $0. If you push: 50% of the time you win $79 14.3% of the time you win $209 35.7% of the time you lose $173 ------------------------------------- average win of $7.63 again, the numbers are nowhere near this good for you but i think the play is horrible. [/ QUOTE ] Hate to do it but...FYP
|
|
#27
12-15-2005, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i think you get called way more than 50% of the time... [/ QUOTE ] If that's the only thing you see wrong with this post, you're not looking hard enough. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean info is missing or my play is awful? Or both? Probably both. I can live with that. If I thought the play was perfect, I never would have posted it...
|
|
#28
12-15-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
Big_Jim is referring to Aggie's post not yours.
|
|
#29
12-15-2005, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i think you get called way more than 50% of the time... [/ QUOTE ] If that's the only thing you see wrong with this post, you're not looking hard enough. [/ QUOTE ] Big jim, can you please elaborate and tell me what was wrong with my math or my logic?
|
|
#30
12-15-2005, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re-bluff: possible squeeze-bluff
Ok. So here's why I posted this hand:
I knew that most people would fillet me for repopping a guy when he's getting such good odds to call. I knew this at the time, but chose to go with my gut anyway. This is the first time that I have ever made this particular move, and it was 100% read based. Regardless, I agree with most people that there are better times to give this a shot, and I'll do so. However, let me just add a few things that no one has touched on and I think are a key to the hand. First of all, my hand can't look like anything other than AA or KK to this guy. Unless he's got one of these hands, then he can't figure that 2.25-1 is a good price for a call (figuring that his hand is probably at least a 4-1 dog against AA). That's why I think that I have decent FE. That's why I reasoned hands such as KJ and AQ are probably in the muck pretty quickly. But the true key here is that I think there's a much better than average possibility that he's squeezing me with a non-premium hand. And actually I love his move. I squeeze with any two cards in his situation a high percentage of the time. And from what I saw, he was that type of player who is happy to put on a squeeze with so-so cards. Also, I suspected (but didn't KNOW) that the math probably made it realtively close. As Big Jim says, I probably overestimated my FE here. That was a mistake. But anyway, thanks for all the feedback. The great thing about posting here is that I always hear reasoning that I couldn't have anticipated, which will improve my game in a number of different situations. Oh, and BTW... this is my 700th post! Wahoo!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
