5/5 foxwoods shorthanded

[tdarko]

that flop min-raise doesn't seem like you duck? very strange.

can you explain the flop?

[okayplayer]

Flop I really don't like. I would call, but if you're going to raise, make it somewhere b/n $400-500. Then with the turn in that scenario, you can push over his weak bet. As played, I raise the turn to $1200-$1400. River, bleh, against a bad player I call.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
flop (200): 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

villain bets 100, hero raises to 200

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

ML4L

[/ QUOTE ]

I was kidding mike [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[creedofhubris]

If he's not a big bluffer, then it looks like a clear fold on the river.

I too hate the minraise on the flop.

[mgsimpleton]

ok so here is my thinking in the hand...

first of all, he was a passive straddler and by that i mean he's not the type to juice his straddle with any 2 - if he does it will be a premium hand, or else i'll get to play my suited connectors for cheap in a "raised" pot with huge implied odds, as always.

the minraise on the flop, i don't know i guess iw as switching things up... basically i find out if he is on overcards here for very cheap. if he is on overcards, regardless of how much i raise i really think he folds. when he "reraises" me (reminraise, sweet) that means he has some type of overpair, in my opinion. so this information actually turns out to be key for the rest of the hand.

on the turn, i actually considered for a second that this guy maybe was getting tricky and had a TJ hand, and i also thought for a second that he might very well have top set given the flop action... so my raise was basically the biggest i thought i could muster without pot committing myself. he was passive enough that if he shoved the turn i definitely was going to fold. once he deliberates and calls, i know i'm good for now... but it really seemed like the kind of thing where he had picked up some outs and knew he was behind (which is weird if he has a big overpair for sure since he overplayed his KK like mad before, but i think he respects my play more than the guy against whom he had the KK, so he'd be more likely to give me credit for a bigger hand than one pair).

on the river, he sees the spade... well, it's also a king but i think it is far more important that it is a spade... and he moves in. that means he is representing spades. so maybe he has a flush... but in myu opinion the fact that he is representing spades shows that if he does not have a flush, he cannot beat my two pair... so i am no longer worried about 999. sure KKK is a possibility i suppose but it just seemed like he was representing the flush. so i thought back to the flop action - he is passive... passive people with draws revert to call down action, they don't reraise. and if they do reraise, it is usually to get you to fold so they CERTAINLY wouldn't minreraise. so i couldn't put him on the flush.

since i couldn't put him on the flush, and i thought he was representing the flush, i called. i thought it made perfect sense and was sort of obvious in retrospect. anyway he had JJ and i won... the weird thing though is given that he overplayed KK so massively, why was he bluffing with JJ here? well that's the thing i still have no idea about.

[creedofhubris]

Most passive players don't represent flushes like that.

Of course, most of them don't straddle either.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]

on the river, he sees the spade... well, it's also a king but i think it is far more important that it is a spade... and he moves in. that means he is representing spades. so maybe he has a flush... but in myu opinion the fact that he is representing spades shows that if he does not have a flush


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense-that K on the river could make him trips or it could make him a flush, and I have no idea why you think that the push is him representing spades rather than him value-betting KK or 99. It seems like you just wanted to call here, so you said "i'll take his bet which could indicate many different holdings to only indicate one of them. What a coincidence-that one holding that he is indicating is the one that doesn't make any sense based on the flop, so he can't have it. So he must be bluffing."

Obviously if he is representing spades he doesn't have two pair beat-but what makes you think his river bet could only be representing spades and nothing else?