|
|
#12
10-26-2005, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
Yeah, the pf cap isn't standard for me but I've seen him 3 bet w/ hands like J3s and complete junk so I was fairly sure I had some sort of equity edege. Eliminating CO was another reason for capping as well. The advantage of capping is that I'm pretty sure I have an equity edge pf and I can get enough bets in on the flop to give myself correct odds to draw to my 2 outter on the turn if I don't like the flop.
|
|
#13
10-26-2005, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
Eliminating CO was another reason for capping as well. [/ QUOTE ] Once he calls 2 cold preflop, he folds for 2 more exactly 0% of the time. [ QUOTE ] I can get enough bets in on the flop to give myself correct odds to draw to my 2 outter on the turn if I don't like the flop. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm. I have to go out right now but I think you are about to get a flaming here..
|
|
#14
10-26-2005, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the pf cap isn't standard for me but I've seen him 3 bet w/ hands like J3s and complete junk so I was fairly sure I had some sort of equity edege. Eliminating CO was another reason for capping as well. The advantage of capping is that I'm pretty sure I have an equity edge pf and I can get enough bets in on the flop to give myself correct odds to draw to my 2 outter on the turn if I don't like the flop. [/ QUOTE ] As surfoc mentioned, don't you think that last sentence needs revisiting? Lets say you have 22 on a flop of AKQ and you go 10 bets with villain. You're certainly getting odds to call a turn bet...but getting those odds by going nuts on the flop isn't good. I'm not saying this is what you did in this hand, just that this idea of building up pots so you still have odds to continue doesn't seem like the smartest thing to me...
|
|
#15
10-26-2005, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I can get enough bets in on the flop to give myself correct odds to draw to my 2 outter on the turn if I don't like the flop. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm. I have to go out right now but I think you are about to get a flaming here.. [/ QUOTE ] What I meant to say was I'd get enough bets in PREFLOP to make calling the flop to hit my 2 outter ok
|
|
#16
10-26-2005, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
Fixed my post. What I meant was that by capping pf against 3 opponents, I'm putting in more bets w/an equity edge. If the flop happens to be AKQ, I'd be getting 17:1 minimum on my flop call which is enough to peel. If I just call the 3 bet, I'd be getting 13:1 on a the call which is significantly less than what I would need to call the flop
|
|
#17
10-26-2005, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
What I meant to say was I'd get enough bets in PREFLOP to make calling the flop to hit my 2 outter ok [/ QUOTE ] no. this is like capping the flop in order to give yourself odds to see the river on a gutshot. illogical.
|
|
#18
10-26-2005, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
Not when I likely have an equity edge pf. Check out the link below. Its from BarronVonTooths article in the sept magazine. In the hand he 3 bets KQs b/c he likely has the best hand pf. An incidental effect to this play is that he makes the pot big enough where he can draw more effectively.
http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue9/toth0905.html
|
|
#20
10-26-2005, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 in a big pot against a maniac
Building the pot so you can draw in the future is not a reason to raise now. Raise now if you have an equity edge.
The only thing you gain from this is the ability to draw to your 2 outer and have a little fun when you suck out. A lot can go wrong though - you can be trapped by a raise on the flop and lose money there. You can hit your 2 outer and still lose.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
