Preflop bluff turns into money by the river

[ZootMurph]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to post a hand in which the wisdom or donky-ness of your play depends on incredibly specific reads that will generate incredibly specific post-flop responses, then you need to include those reads in the original post (or consider not posting it, as it contains little to educate and little to comment upon). And for the love of God, do not include in the original post a read that contradicts the "pull a read out later to justify my play" expansion on the original read. Your OP described MP2 as LAGgy pre-flop and either jamming or folding after the turn post-flop. That read does not even resemble "he will fold for one bet in a big pot if the flop misses him." I am not arguing with the nature of your read - I am pointing out that your expanded read contradcits the original read you provided to your readers.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, Catt. I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough in my initial post. I did say this again when I specified the information later. I didn't even read where I said after the turn. It was supposed to be after the flop, and I just typed the wrong thing. Back in the old days, the flop was actually called the turn, and I still refer to it as such on ocassion when I'm not thinking. Not proofreading my post was my fault.

[ QUOTE ]
My fifth point was simply that you have four players, including two blinds, to act behind you. even if "calling station" doesn't carry over to pre-flop play, you've got four hands behind you, any one of which could be a solid hand. This fact impacts the wisdom of three-betting 76s.

[/ QUOTE ]

A solid hand doesn't necessitate a hand that can call a 3 bet. KQ is a solid hand. Many (not all) players, myself included, would not call a 3 bet with it. At the time, I judged my chances and made my play. Admittedly (and I have said this in previous posts), my evaluation of the odds was quite a bit off.

[ QUOTE ]
On the 76s versus 72o distinction. I don't get your argument at all. The play has +EV IYO because of the specific reads, not the intrinsic value of the hand. Even if you now want to include intrinsic hand value, the argument that 'I have better chances to flop something worth fighting over' is pretty much totally negated when it's apparent that you'll fight even when you flop nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is 76s makes the play more valuable than 72o, because 76s is a better hand. As I said before, AA would make this play more valuable, because it is a better hand. The play has value with 72o. Has MORE value with 76s, and has even more with AA. Simply stated, the better the hand the better the value on any play. However, in this specific situation, 72o is basically the same as 76s, if you are just playing the situation. If you are just playing the cards, no way can 76s be playable in any way. Combine the cards and the situation, and 76s is more valuable a play than 72o.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's a poor habit to adopt results-oriented justifications for plays. You "accounted" for big pairs because he didn't cap pre-flop? How did you account for that at the time it was raised to you and you're contemplating fold-call-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I accounted for big pairs by saying that the few times he has a big pair will be offset by the few times I flop a big hand. I said that the fact he didn't cap preflop verified that he did not have a big pair. Accounting for something in your calculations and having it verified by actions later are two different things. If I didn't explain this correctly, my apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
And did this accounting also account for hands like TT - 77 that he might not cap? You don't retroactively say "this was +EV because he didn't cap me."

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I accounted for big pairs as above. As for hands like TT-77 or worse, I felt he was folding enough that he would have no trouble folding hands like this if an overcard came.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, "I think the fact that MP2 folded the flop verifies my read more than anything else." Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you verify a read, just out of curiosity. I watched this player fold the flop a LOT during the time at the table before this hand. I said that. He folded again. All this is verification of a read, isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
On a final point - I don't think anyone could read your "Am I the only one varying my play" post without coming away feeling condescended to; it is frankly dripping with defensiveness and condescension. You may very well not have intended it so, but perhaps in the future think carefully about the words you write and the sentiments they will likely express to your readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion on the hand is that it is rank spewing on a dimension not often seen. If you think it is an example of adjusting one's play to specific table reads worthy of comment, then you need to do a much better job of (1) providing detailed reads on your opponents (including the guys behind you who folded pre-flop), and (2) backing up the play of the hand, mathematically, to account for those times when your reads are not perfect (i.e., "I think this is very -EV normally, moderately -EV in some cases, and neutral to +EV in this specific case, because even if my reads are off and I don't get the pre-flop action I desired or the flop I was looking for, here is the expectation with this hand . . ."). But to repeat a point from before - if the worthiness of hand depends almost entirely on very intricate, specific reads, it's probably not a hand worthy of a post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. This has been said several times now. I didn't give all information necessary initially, and as I've said several times now, I'm sorry. Don't know what else you are trying to accomplish here but to get me to say I'm sorry again... So, Catt... I'm sorry I didn't get all the relevant information in the initial post.