Re: improving my WTSD
[ QUOTE ]
i'm also calling the river in hand 5, though bet-fold is reasonable.
[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree about b/f, because with so many overcards my hand is at most a bluff-catcher.
[ QUOTE ]
hand 6 looks like a bad fold to me, there are a million hands that are semi-bluff raising that turn, plus you've probably got 4-6 outs to improve if you are behind.
[/ QUOTE ]
i have 99, so i don't see how i can have more than 2 outs.
[ QUOTE ]
hand 9 bet-fold the turn is standard, check-fold is real weak sauce in that spot. if you do this a lot you're going to get floated to death. check-raise would be super freaky if he's doing this all the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
though b/f may be correct (hard for me to say), it is certainly not standard, because the other posted opinions were c/c (2 times), b/c (1 time), c/f (1 time), b/? (1 time, no second action given)
[ QUOTE ]
hand 10 find a raise somewhere, flop or prob turn. why are you assuming you're behind? many people with donk with any two on that board. you've got nearly 5000 hands on this guy but no read on what a donk means?? as played i've got no idea what to do on the river, probably a fold is ok.
[/ QUOTE ]
i'm assuming i'm behind because my equity is certainly less than 50% against his range. the 5000 hands are datamined, i haven't played with this guy much.
[ QUOTE ]
one further thing, i don't much like raising limpers with unsuited high cards from the blinds, multiway especially (i.e AK in hand 7 is asking for trouble unless the field is super passive). unless you're doing this with a decent range it gives away your hand and makes you easier to play against, and plus gives others the odds to chase further.
[/ QUOTE ]
if i exclude AK from my raising range, my range would be even narrower, so by this logic i'd give away my hand even more when i raise. in any case, it looks like you are new to the forum. i'm also pretty new, but i think much more real evidence is required to make statements about correct preflop play, especially if the play you recommend is non-standard. if it were that simple to prove which play is correct, poker would be easy. the "real evidence" i'm talking about would include:
- statistical data with sufficient sample size for both strategies
- results of simulations
- quoting the opinion of a well-known author
- the fact that you are a proven excellent player so that if one knows you do something, it is more like to be correct
for this last reason, if similar advice was given by an established player on this forum, it would make much more sense to simply trust it without requiring any hard data. as it is, nobody yet knows what kind of player you are. moreover, this precise advice and argument that you give can be found in one of standard poker books (possibly Johny Chan's, i can't remember now), so just by stating your source you could have provided the kind of "real evidence" i was talking about.
|