Pocket TT Against Overcards

[Zeldark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Even if Hero would call a river raise I think there is value in the bet. Calling a river raise = I can't play poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that calling a river raise is bad and I dont want to nitpick but

b/f >>>>>>> b/c >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> c/c

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing this is for an unknown?

Against a loose passive that might call with Ax or worse then a B/F makes sense. Against a particularly aggressive opponent that will bet when you show weakness but make you pay if he has Qx or Kx, then C/C does in fact, make sense.

[sharpie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Even if Hero would call a river raise I think there is value in the bet. Calling a river raise = I can't play poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that calling a river raise is bad and I dont want to nitpick but

b/f >>>>>>> b/c >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> c/c

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing this is for an unknown?

Against a loose passive that might call with Ax or worse then a B/F makes sense. Against a particularly aggressive opponent that will bet when you show weakness but make you pay if he has Qx or Kx, then C/C does in fact, make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Kx would often put in a raise earlier, and aggressive doesn't necessarily mean they'll valuebet a low pocket pair on this board, or turn their A high into a bluff.

[Zeldark]

Well the point is that it is opponent dependent and that saying such and such move is bad poker is too generalized.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the point is that it is opponent dependent and that saying such and such move is bad poker is too generalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

General statements are most often useless but sometimes a play is bad against any kind of villain.

Seriously! You should never c/c this river.

[Zeldark]

You think Ax and 99-22 is common enough for a bet? That really isn't that many hands. If he's the kind of person that has a betting range on the river wider than that, it makes sense to C/C. If you think it's going to be smaller than that then B/F makes sense. Unless he's horrible, he won't be calling down with much else that beats us.

Although him being horrible isn't out of the question.

[sharpie]

I think him being good is out of the question.

[Zeldark]

[ QUOTE ]
I think him being good is out of the question.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No read at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Oink]

No way that a villain who coldcalls first in preflop is betting 22-99 and Ax more often than he is calling a bet with them.

This is going nowhere. I am sorry but c/c is retarded and extremely bad poker IMO.

Edit: If villain is good then c/c is even more retarded!

[Zeldark]

Devil's Advocate is out of here. That was fun.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Even if Hero would call a river raise I think there is value in the bet. Calling a river raise = I can't play poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that calling a river raise is bad and I dont want to nitpick but

b/f >>>>>>> b/c >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> c/c

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing this is for an unknown?

Against a loose passive that might call with Ax or worse then a B/F makes sense. Against a particularly aggressive opponent that will bet when you show weakness but make you pay if he has Qx or Kx, then C/C does in fact, make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to enlighten me with the worse hands in villains range that will bet if checked to and not call a bet.

Ok, just reread the hand. So there is busted spade draws. So maybe 65ss, 98ss, T9ss and JTss will bet if checked to. But that is only 4 combos so I still think c/c is retarded (sorry!) against any villain.