![]() |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
i call down, i expect to win around 50% of the time.
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Villain is LAG. [/ QUOTE ] How is he LAG??? .86 AF.... IMO your beat here a large portion of the time... A c/r from a .86 is very scary. Unless ive seen something that tells me that this c/r is sometimes a bluff then your probably beat. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
I would ALWAYS call this down against a more aggressive opponent. [/ QUOTE ] But its a fold vs. a passive... I.e. This hand |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
36/16 isn't... ummm... passive.
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
36/16 isn't... ummm... passive. [/ QUOTE ] I agree... its not passive pre flop... how about post? |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 36/16 isn't... ummm... passive. [/ QUOTE ] I agree... its not passive pre flop... how about post? [/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm just not ready to make that conclusion, either way, based on 200 hands. Easy call IMO. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 36/16 isn't... ummm... passive. [/ QUOTE ] I agree... its not passive pre flop... how about post? [/ QUOTE ] This is a matter of an interpretation of stats. The aggression factor is calculated as: (bet % + raise %)/(call %). Since a loose player(and he is loose) he may be calling a bit more hands but have the same raising standards of a TAG. Therefore, his AF will go down even though he may be just as aggressive. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
I take back what I said earlier. Thanks for explaining this to me. Two others explained this whole stat issue to me in the AK thread. Thx again
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Weighting outs (combo, combinations, outs, weighted outs): 66, 3, 0, 0 33, 3, 0, 0 A6, 9, 6, 1 A3, 9, 7.5, 1.3 Q6, 9, 8, 1.4 Q3, 9, 8, 1.4 63, 9, 8, 1.4 Total = 6.5 [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the thorough analysis. I estimated around 6 outs as well, but not that exact. But I dont think I get it. Why 7.5 outs against A3? We have 9 outs (3 6s, 3 Qs, 3 Js). Furthermore, why is this a clear call with 6.5 outs getting 6-to-1? And we are getting 3.5-to-1 for a call-down no matter what. Is this guy check-raising us with a worse hand more than 20% of the time? I actually dont know, but would guess not. A turn check-raise is rare IMO. And a bluff/semibluff turn check-raise much rarer. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
But I dont think I get it. Why 7.5 outs against A3? We have 9 outs (3 6s, 3 Qs, 3 Js). [/ QUOTE ] Gotcha. The 6s only count for half because we would then split with A3. [ QUOTE ] Furthermore, why is this a clear call with 6.5 outs getting 6-to-1? And we are getting 3.5-to-1 for a call-down no matter what. [/ QUOTE ] Implied odds, we have position on him. If we catch and he bets, we are at least making one more bet. And, yeah, we're getting 3.5:1 on a calldown, if we call his river bet (if he makes one), which we don't have to if we don't improve (I think I've already said that, tho). [ QUOTE ] Is this guy check-raising us with a worse hand more than 20% of the time? I actually dont know, but would guess not. A turn check-raise is rare IMO. And a bluff/semibluff turn check-raise much rarer. [/ QUOTE ] I don't actually know, since we don't have a real read, and OP doesn't seem to be talking. But since we make up the difference in implieds, the times he's semi-bluffing is just gravy (think I already said that, too). |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|