|
|
#21
11-21-2005, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think people sometimes over estimate how often you'll get a call from a non-pair hand, and under estimate how often a non-pair hand will bet when you show weakness by checking. [/ QUOTE ] Hm, my experience has been the complete opposite of this. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] is this 1/2?? they check behind a lot at 1/2 and .5/1 .. but bet a shitton at 2/4, 3/6, 5/10(also more likely to raise the river) [/ QUOTE ] This is 1/2. However, I still think the play is the same, given my read. It's not like I'm facing an unknown player here. 
|
|
#22
11-21-2005, 03:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think people sometimes over estimate how often you'll get a call from a non-pair hand, and under estimate how often a non-pair hand will bet when you show weakness by checking. [/ QUOTE ] Hm, my experience has been the complete opposite of this. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] is this 1/2?? they check behind a lot at 1/2 and .5/1 .. but bet a shitton at 2/4, 3/6, 5/10(also more likely to raise the river) [/ QUOTE ] IMO, Check-raising the flop in a heads up pot indicates a stronger hand for most 1/2 players than it does for a 2+2er. From my experience a lot of these players will often donk weak to medium strength hands and save check-raising for TPTK or better. My point here is that villian is probably more likely to just check behind after you made such a strong looking move on an earlier street.
|
|
#23
11-21-2005, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think people sometimes over estimate how often you'll get a call from a non-pair hand, and under estimate how often a non-pair hand will bet when you show weakness by checking. [/ QUOTE ] Hm, my experience has been the complete opposite of this. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] id agree... particularly at 6m. people are gonna attack at any sign of weakness if they cant win the pot at showdown
|
|
#24
11-21-2005, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think people sometimes over estimate how often you'll get a call from a non-pair hand, and under estimate how often a non-pair hand will bet when you show weakness by checking. [/ QUOTE ] Hm, my experience has been the complete opposite of this. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] id agree... particularly at 6m. people are gonna attack at any sign of weakness if they cant win the pot at showdown [/ QUOTE ] You're acting like every player at 6-max is just a non-stop betting machine, regardless of reads.
|
|
#25
11-21-2005, 03:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think people sometimes over estimate how often you'll get a call from a non-pair hand, and under estimate how often a non-pair hand will bet when you show weakness by checking. [/ QUOTE ] Hm, my experience has been the complete opposite of this. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] id agree... particularly at 6m. people are gonna attack at any sign of weakness if they cant win the pot at showdown [/ QUOTE ] move up a few limits, play there a while then drop down, and watch how passive it seems 1/2 is very loose, but for the most part passive .. the average player will check behind here a lot ..
|
|
#26
11-21-2005, 03:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
i was really wanting a response from the guys early on that openly dismissed check/calling this river.
not because i disagree, but because i would use this exact moveset with hands like so standardly at least 10 times every session... so if its wrong i would like to hear the negatives so i can fix my leak. so far ive only heard it be openly dismissed with little argument other than: "your opponent will likely call but not bet with A-high"....
|
|
#27
11-21-2005, 03:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
Everyone that said 'check-calling is wrong here' were talking about this situation specifically.
|
|
#28
11-21-2005, 03:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
move up a few limits, play there a while then drop down, and watch how passive it seems [/ QUOTE ] Stake me?
|
|
#29
11-21-2005, 03:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone that said check-calling is wrong here were talking about this situation specifically. [/ QUOTE ] um [ QUOTE ] river depends on how he plays Ahigh/Khigh(other assorted nopair hands) if he always bets if you check, you are better served to check/call if he checks behind Ahigh, but will call with it, bet/fold if he checks behind Ahigh/Khigh, and doesn't call a river bet ... check/fold [/ QUOTE ] its not a simple hey one is bad, its dependent on how this player plays, and its kinda a feel thing, that you get with time, practice(and looking stupid a few million times)
|
|
#30
11-21-2005, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 44 blind defense
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Everyone that said check-calling is wrong here were talking about this situation specifically. [/ QUOTE ] um [ QUOTE ] river depends on how he plays Ahigh/Khigh(other assorted nopair hands) if he always bets if you check, you are better served to check/call if he checks behind Ahigh, but will call with it, bet/fold if he checks behind Ahigh/Khigh, and doesn't call a river bet ... check/fold [/ QUOTE ] its not a simple hey one is bad, its dependent on how this player plays, and its kinda a feel thing, that you get with time, practice(and looking stupid a few million times) [/ QUOTE ] That's exactly what I was trying to tell eskimo. I guess I worded it weird. He was saying people were making blanket-statements for all cases, I was disagreeing.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
