antisocialgrace
03-11-2007, 12:09 AM
This is more of a tourney question I guess, but I'm posting it here anyway becuase I think the same would be applicable in a cash game.
Harrington says you should try to win pots early against loose-aggressive players--especially when you're going to be out of position after the flop. He's not very clear but I have to assume he's talking about situations where you know you have the best hand and there are already a fair number of chips in the pot; why would you waste a premium hand on just winning the blinds?
Depending on the stage of the tourney (assume it's time to gamble) I don't agree with this if I'm holding AA or KK-- especially if my singular opponent has shown he will raise with just about any two cards.
I really think in this case if you know you're up against a wannabee Gus Hansen who is likely going to make one play after another at the pot whether he has anything or not and as long as you don't chase him out, the right play here is to check-call the flop and turn (probably check-raise the river, but you might value-bet it on the rare occasion you think he might check it down) and just take your chances that he gets lucky enough to hit runner-runner with a medium strength or less hand.
The way I see it if he's got a strong hand he's going to call anyway. Ergo you're really only risking letting him draw on discount with his medium strength or less hands. Against AA or KK (assuming he doesn't have an A when I have K's, which is still only a 3-outer) he therefore has to hit 2 outs for a set with an under PP, runner-runner with undercards or runner runner runner with suited connectors.
It seems to me these are remote enough possibilities heads-up that they're well worth risking to induce bluffing and win a big pot. My play also assumes that he probably won't call any big value bets unless he's got me beat.
Any thoughts?
Harrington says you should try to win pots early against loose-aggressive players--especially when you're going to be out of position after the flop. He's not very clear but I have to assume he's talking about situations where you know you have the best hand and there are already a fair number of chips in the pot; why would you waste a premium hand on just winning the blinds?
Depending on the stage of the tourney (assume it's time to gamble) I don't agree with this if I'm holding AA or KK-- especially if my singular opponent has shown he will raise with just about any two cards.
I really think in this case if you know you're up against a wannabee Gus Hansen who is likely going to make one play after another at the pot whether he has anything or not and as long as you don't chase him out, the right play here is to check-call the flop and turn (probably check-raise the river, but you might value-bet it on the rare occasion you think he might check it down) and just take your chances that he gets lucky enough to hit runner-runner with a medium strength or less hand.
The way I see it if he's got a strong hand he's going to call anyway. Ergo you're really only risking letting him draw on discount with his medium strength or less hands. Against AA or KK (assuming he doesn't have an A when I have K's, which is still only a 3-outer) he therefore has to hit 2 outs for a set with an under PP, runner-runner with undercards or runner runner runner with suited connectors.
It seems to me these are remote enough possibilities heads-up that they're well worth risking to induce bluffing and win a big pot. My play also assumes that he probably won't call any big value bets unless he's got me beat.
Any thoughts?