|
|
#21
07-19-2005, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 3-bet, 2 street, 2 opponent bluff
I pull a lead-flop, check-raise-turn play often, and mostly with hands even as weak as KQ in a pot like this with 2 opponents. In fact, one of the reasons I made this play at this time is that I had in fact c/red a turn just like this with some big hand at the table an orbit or so and showed it down. That being said, I don't think I would play any monster in this fashion against these two opponents.
|
|
#22
07-19-2005, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-bet, 2 street, 2 opponent bluff
Doesn't amke much sense to do this with the flush draw on the flop. On a rainbow flop you shoudl amke this play. In this case anyone with clubs is seeing the river. If the happen to pair up along the way they may call the river. I think you need to have a chance to win on the turn to make this play reasonable.
|
|
#23
07-19-2005, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-bet, 2 street, 2 opponent bluff
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't amke much sense to do this with the flush draw on the flop. On a rainbow flop you shoudl amke this play. In this case anyone with clubs is seeing the river. [/ QUOTE ] I was 100% certain I wasn't going to win the pot on the turn. On a rainbow flop, I have to give the players more credit for a hand that can see a showdown. The clubs were an integral part of the bluff. While it's debateable whether or not my play is profitable, I'm pretty certain it'd be less profitable on a rainbow board.
|
|
#24
07-20-2005, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-bet, 2 street, 2 opponent bluff
Your read on MP was that his call was a "wait and see" call. Does that mean he probably plans to call you down? Or fold to a turn bet? If you think he'll (at least sometimes) fold, why not bet the turn and get heads up against a drawing hand?
|
|
#26
07-26-2005, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-bet, 2 street, 2 opponent bluff
[ QUOTE ]
2 questions. 1. what's a meta game? 2. what's a protected pot? thanks [/ QUOTE ] Meta game describes the effect that your actions will have on other hands throughout the course of the game, not just this one. A protected pot is when there is more than one opponent, so a bluff is very unlikely. In this case, the pot is "protected" by UTG1 when he calls, making it very unlikely that hero is bluffing when he raises.
|
|
#27
07-26-2005, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-bet, 2 street, 2 opponent bluff
The check raise would be a great play..... if you had the K!
That way you can get everyone who is drawing for two BB. Unfortunately you don't and when you don't bet the turn you almost make it automatic for the button to raise. Gaining you no information. Most people will automatically call against a check-raise when they already have one in. He is more likely to fold marginal hands if you just bet into him.
|
|
#28
07-26-2005, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3-bet, 2 street, 2 opponent bluff
[ QUOTE ]
The check raise would be a great play..... if you had the K! That way you can get everyone who is drawing for two BB. Unfortunately you don't and when you don't bet the turn you almost make it automatic for the button to raise. Gaining you no information. Most people will automatically call against a check-raise when they already have one in. He is more likely to fold marginal hands if you just bet into him. [/ QUOTE ] This would be true if gonores was playing .5/1 with mindless calling stations. He isn't, therefore bluffing is ok. This is a pretty risky line and I don't know if I like it, but just dismissing the idea of checkraise bluffing is silly.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
