|
|
#131
03-22-2005, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
[ QUOTE ]
I had KQ. [/ QUOTE ] Lakerman's loose'ish opening standards in this spot + James' loose'ish blind defense standards in this spot = 3-bet your damn KQ in this spot. GoT 
|
|
#132
03-22-2005, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't mind how you played it. The call PF, or rather the lack of 3-bet, followed by the check-call on flop is scary from this particular player. PS: Gutshots rule? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] They don't rule as much as runner runner spades. Glad to see somebody who actually plays in this game can see where I was coming from. -James
|
|
#133
03-22-2005, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
[ QUOTE ]
I also agree that 3-betting the river is bad. If the river had been any card *but* a king, I might think it's ok, but his checkraise on that card is bad news. [/ QUOTE ] This because it's so much easier for him to plan a check-raise with that rivered K? Any other river card and the risk of it being checked through would be too great?
|
|
#134
03-22-2005, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
Because James could well have Ak the way he played the hand. So, if Stox checkraises him, James would be hardpressed to 3 bet because Stox is telling him that James' Ak is no good.
|
|
#135
03-23-2005, 12:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
[ QUOTE ]
Glad to see somebody who actually plays in this game can see where I was coming from [/ QUOTE ] the game seriously means nothing. it's you playing a 2+2er that you know in a heads up pot.
|
|
#136
03-23-2005, 12:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Glad to see somebody who actually plays in this game can see where I was coming from [/ QUOTE ] the game seriously means nothing. it's you playing a 2+2er that you know in a heads up pot. [/ QUOTE ] Okay you're right, having experience playing with this player in this particular game is totally meaningless. Now go ahead and make sure you get the last word in so this pointless conversation can continue to stay at the top of the mid-high forum. -James
|
|
#137
03-23-2005, 12:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
bump
|
|
#138
03-23-2005, 03:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100-200 against stoxtrader
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you are this worried that he has to have a queen or 99 in order to check/raise the turn, otherwise he'll fold, then you should be able to clean him out in a short-handed game. I see what you're saying, but it applies more to full games. Not short-handed games. I think you guys are VERY wrong on this and if you'd put some thought into it you might be able to see that. But I'm not one of your famed posters. So what do I know? No prob. [/ QUOTE ] If he check-raises the turn and I three bet, he is definitely not calling down with worse than a queen. What more do you need to know? If your default is to call down in those shoes, then your game needs some work. Occasionally I'll be making a move when I three-bet back at you, but not usually because I think a three-bet if i did have a queen would be bad because he can give up a worse hand. If I did have a queen, I'd call the turn cr and raise any river. God I hate when new posters get haughty when they are disagreed with. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY POSTS YOU HAVE. I'm simply saying I disagree with your proposed line for this hand. We're blunt with eachother on this board when we disagree, you need to learn to not be so sensitive. -James [/ QUOTE ] If he isn't calling down with a hand less then a Queen then you both sux at short! Either your way to predictable on the turn or he is a big pushover! You telling me Stox isn't capable of smooth call the flop with the intention of trying to move you off without a hand? You telling me you are so passive/predictable that you can't play back on turn with any hand? Mike
|
|
#140
03-23-2005, 03:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: mike
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Glad to see somebody who actually plays in this game can see where I was coming from [/ QUOTE ] the game seriously means nothing. it's you playing a 2+2er that you know in a heads up pot. [/ QUOTE ] Okay you're right, having experience playing with this player in this particular game is totally meaningless. Now go ahead and make sure you get the last word in so this pointless conversation can continue to stay at the top of the mid-high forum. -James [/ QUOTE ] James, I can't tell whether you have bought into this or not, but I firmly believe that both your results and stox's will imrpove if you take enough different lines against each other such that even in a hand against each other you can't make such precise reads. The toughest hands of poker I play are against GiftOfGab. This is because both of us know how the other plays better than anyone else. Which results in a lot of very complex lines that are far different than our standard lines and are often near impossible to analyze correctly. Having to battle so intensely with someone over every pot we contest absolutely improves my game against other players. Having said all that, all my initial remarks were based on the fact that you called this a short game and I inferred that it was 4-handed. Making it 6-handed definitely changes a lot of things.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
