|
|
#1
10-26-2005, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
I just joined this table. No reads. I played this today and was happy with my decision. Now I am second guessing my river play. Looking for your thoughts!
Party Poker 0.50/1 Hold'em (5 handed) converter Preflop: Hero is SB with 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. UTG posts a blind of $0.50. MP posts a blind of $0.50. UTG (poster) checks, MP (poster) checks, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero completes, BB checks. Flop: (4 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font> <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, UTG folds, MP calls. Turn: (3 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font> <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP calls. River: (5 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font> Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP bets</font>, Hero ????? 
|
|
#3
10-26-2005, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
Hero mucks. This is one of those bet/fold rivers that I hate and see everyday.
Recently, I thought I was going insane making this kind of play and started calling just for sanity. That was dumb. Yeah, I'm beat w/ a river raise by a passive player almost 100% of the time. But w/o reads, it's probably still a muck. Too bad the board didn't pair so you could push this guy's completed flush. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I wouldn't be surprised to see a one card flush completed w/ either the A or the Q. Sometimes the crazies raise w/ a J. Cray Zee P.S. I went to the Bible store and couldn't find the WWSD ankle bracklets. I was so bummed out. I would look so rad with one. Sexy even.
|
|
#4
10-26-2005, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
You can't fold this. He'll bet a hand you beat a large % of the time when you check this river. That's why you don't check this river. You bet fold or if the guy is known to be laggy bet call. In this case against an unknown I tend to bet fold unless I'm feeling lucky!
|
|
#5
10-26-2005, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
When you say "bet fold" or "bet call," do you mean bet and then either fold to or call if he raises? This seems retarded to me. The purpose of betting on the river is to get called (or even raised) by a second-best hand, or to get a better hand to fold. This isn't happening here, as he's not calling (or raising) without a flush, and he's unlikely to fold on the river here if he has the flush. If he has the flush, then by check-calling we are only one paying one bet to see the showdown, whereas we are forcing ourselves to pay two if we bet and get raised.
If he's betting a hand that you beat on the river (for instance, if your check induces a bluff), then a check-call will result in taking down the pot. I don't see any rationale for betting this river. This is an easy check-call IMO.
|
|
#8
10-26-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
I think you'll catch a bluff or a weaker 6 more than one in six times to call here.
|
|
#9
10-26-2005, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
You can't fold this. He'll bet a hand you beat a large % of the time when you check this river. That's why you don't check this river. You bet fold or if the guy is known to be laggy bet call. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think you have to call a raise unless the guy is a Maniwack.
|
|
#10
10-26-2005, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
WWSD? I will take the liberty of saying that Sklansky would not have checked this river. I like a bet/fold line. I think Sklansky would too with no read, but I certainly don't want to put words in his mouth.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
