|
|
#11
12-13-2002, 05:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stud/8: The Low Draw Pairs Overcards
Bill,
Briefly messing with twodimes I got ths for sixth street with two plausable hands for Alan's opponent. cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Qs 9c 4c Qd 6d 9h 516 1000 560 0 0 0 0 0.486 Ks 4d 2d Kh 6h 5h 560 560 1000 0 624 0 0 0.514 cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV Qs 9c 4c Qd 6d 9h 148 148 1412 0 0 0 0 0.095 Ks 3d 2d Kh 6h 3h 1412 1412 148 0 0 0 0 0.905 Looking at it this way, a lot depends on how likely you think Alan's opponent started with a pair/low type hand. Regards, Rick PS I'm too tired to format the results nicely - sorry. 
|
|
#12
12-13-2002, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stud/8: The Low Draw Pairs Overcards
a good player might raise back but most others wouldnt. most players are afraid of trips in this spot. but we are talking about this particular question. i answer the question as it was posted and he said it was unlikely he had two pair.
|
|
#13
12-13-2002, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I disagree that it isn\'t close
Whoops! Half-bet bring-in. Yeah, I'm taking a card off for half a bet even though I'm probably behind in both directions. Still, it is much more likely that he has a three-card low rather than a pair. I'll downgrade from "quite unlikely" to "fairly unlikely." [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#14
12-13-2002, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Results
Call me a wuss; I folded to my opponent's bet on the river.
He then told me that all he had were the kings, and that he had missed his low draw. Which, if I believe him, makes my play the worst possible, saving a bet but costing a whole pot. My motivation for folding was this: It is my experience that the less skilled a player is, the more likely it is that her bet on the end means she has a hand that beats the hand I'm representing that I have. A good player is going to bet a lock low with absolutely no chance of beating me for high. Weaker players will check these, not realizing that they need to bet them to encourage action on their scoop hands. At the same time, I would not bet a bare pare of kings and a missed low draw into an obvious high hand. It's too likely that my opponent, who presumably has put me on a low draw all along, will call. If my bare kings are good, my opponent won't call and I don't gain anything by betting. If they aren't good, I lose an additional bet. But back to the original situation, I would easily call a bet in that spot from an opponent whom I knew to be an experienced stud/8 player. But there are weak players against whom I know that a bet in that spot means I'm beat. This guy seemed to be aware, but I've become leery of calling such bets before I know whether or not a player bets half-pot locks in that spot.
|
|
#15
12-13-2002, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Results
a lot of times i just bet in the dark in these situations because
1) Kings beat Queens and you probably call with just Queens. (especially if i bet in the dark, while if you try to get fancy and raise a lot of times youve just thrown 2 bets away or even 3 if you call reraise) 2) i might make two pair 3) i might make low 4) outside chance you fold queens up and if i look and just have kings and no low i might chicken out, heh 5) cant think of any reason to look and then check also i think once you call 6th its an auto call on 7th if only to show you cant be run over.
|
|
#16
12-14-2002, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Results
Alan,
You wrote: ”Call me a wuss; I folded to my opponent's bet on the river. I had something else in mind! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] ”He then told me that all he had were the kings, and that he had missed his low draw. Which, if I believe him, makes my play the worst possible, saving a bet but costing a whole pot.” ”My motivation for folding was this: It is my experience that the less skilled a player is, the more likely it is that her bet on the end means she has a hand that beats the hand I'm representing that I have. A good player is going to bet a lock low with absolutely no chance of beating me for high. Weaker players will check these, not realizing that they need to bet them to encourage action on their scoop hands.” He/she? OK, your analysis in general makes sense but you need to be damn sure when the whole pot is at stake. Note that in your original post you described your opponent as “fairly aware.” Therefore, his bet on the end is possibly an attempt to bet a scary board that he almost knows can’t be raised unless he is beat. His bet is huge +EV when it has a decent chance to pick up the whole pot (when you fold two pair). ”At the same time, I would not bet a bare pare of kings and a missed low draw into an obvious high hand. It's too likely that my opponent, who presumably has put me on a low draw all along, will call. If my bare kings are good, my opponent won't call and I don't gain anything by betting. If they aren't good, I lose an additional bet.” Putting “your” mind and way of doing things into your opponent’s head is generally a huge mistake. ”But back to the original situation, I would easily call a bet in that spot from an opponent whom I knew to be an experienced stud/8 player. But there are weak players against whom I know that a bet in that spot means I'm beat. This guy seemed to be aware, but I've become leery of calling such bets before I know whether or not a player bets half-pot locks in that spot. When you are not sure of your opponent’s ability, change your default play to calling. BTW, when Hero read your post (before tearing up Hollywood Park’s game yesterday), she immediately screamed: “Call! – Alan’s opponent can easily be betting a busted low/one pair.” But holdem is different. My motto is “assume an unknown opponent is an idiot until proven otherwise.” I guess we use stronger language than “aware” and “unaware,” but then holdem is a less civilized game. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Regards, Rick
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
