I'm bored

[Point Blank]

[ QUOTE ]
Why was this a b/f instead of a b/c? Couldn't BB put you on a PP and raise when his A gets there? What stakes were these? The lower the stakes, the more likely I would be to call this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
you assume this guy has a brain?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was this a b/f instead of a b/c? Couldn't BB put you on a PP and raise when his A gets there? What stakes were these? The lower the stakes, the more likely I would be to call this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
you assume this guy has a brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why fold?

[Point Blank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was this a b/f instead of a b/c? Couldn't BB put you on a PP and raise when his A gets there? What stakes were these? The lower the stakes, the more likely I would be to call this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
you assume this guy has a brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

my comment was more for this poster and what he was thinking, not a comment on the hand

in general, players at this level (who tend towards passive) do not really think about what 'you' have ... even posters on this board don't think about what their opponents are calling with ... your opponents normally look at their hand and either get a hard on and raise (or slowplay their 'monster') or just passively call down with whatever crap they have because they haven't a clue what we hold.

and as for the comment ... 'The lower the stakes, the more likely I would be to call this'

his logic is backwards ... the higher the level generally indicated more 'advanced' opponents who no longer 'just look at their hand', and features many solid thinking players who can fold Queens, Kings and a not so solid ace and will be using a bet-fold line (especially on this river: ace+flush)

on the hand:
i'm surprise Aaron would include a 'read' that is actually based on limited stats ...
by stats he isn't exactly passive (unless Aaron saw a couple of spots that would indicate that villain just hit a couple of solid hands in this time frame to bump is AF up ... and also noticed other spots where villain called down with OK hands, as well as weak hands)

since this is only over 50 or so hands I can't see folding .. but if this guy is passive over a larger time frame I would aggree b/f or c/c (and c/c being crap because you let a passive opponent value bet his strong hands and check behind some random garbage that is small little brain would have called with)

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
on the hand:
i'm surprise Aaron would include a 'read' that is actually based on limited stats ...
by stats he isn't exactly passive (unless Aaron saw a couple of spots that would indicate that villain just hit a couple of solid hands in this time frame to bump is AF up ... and also noticed other spots where villain called down with OK hands, as well as weak hands)

[/ QUOTE ]

I presented the read and said it was weakly supported by the stats. I didn't really want to get into the details of the read (it was pretty late when I posted). But the general idea was that he was a player who saw lots of flops, didn't raise very much preflop or postflop.... he was a passive player.

But putting this aside for a moment, I think this situation is generally a bet-fold or check-call situation. I think you would need to find a player who has a very high bluff-raising/misplaced raising frequency before making a bet-call correct.

[Niediam]

[quote I think you would need to find a player who has a very high bluff-raising/misplaced raising frequency before making a bet-call correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is 'very high'?

B/f isn't great because you will fold to many winners. If you had a very good read on this guy and you were sure he wouldn't raise as a bluff or with a weaker hand that you beat then folding would be fine. But here it's just impossible for you to know that.

C/c isn't good because there are a ton of hands that villian will call a bet with that he won't bet himself that we beat.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you would need to find a player who has a very high bluff-raising/misplaced raising frequency before making a bet-call correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is 'very high'?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's for the math to show.

[ QUOTE ]
B/f isn't great because you will fold to many winners. If you had a very good read on this guy and you were sure he wouldn't raise as a bluff or with a weaker hand that you beat then folding would be fine. But here it's just impossible for you to know that.

C/c isn't good because there are a ton of hands that villian will call a bet with that he won't bet himself that we beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line just isn't very consistent. You think he's going to raise the river with lots of bad hands as a bluff or whatever, but you don't think he's going to bet if I check to him.

[Smurph64]

If you are going to fold to a raise on the river against this kind of player then I don't see the reason to bet the turn.

The only way I fold on the river with this hand is live with a read of the player but mathematically I don't see this fold as proofable.

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you would need to find a player who has a very high bluff-raising/misplaced raising frequency before making a bet-call correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is 'very high'?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's for the math to show.

[ QUOTE ]
B/f isn't great because you will fold to many winners. If you had a very good read on this guy and you were sure he wouldn't raise as a bluff or with a weaker hand that you beat then folding would be fine. But here it's just impossible for you to know that.

C/c isn't good because there are a ton of hands that villian will call a bet with that he won't bet himself that we beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line just isn't very consistent. You think he's going to raise the river with lots of bad hands as a bluff or whatever, but you don't think he's going to bet if I check to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. It's not inconsistant at all. That's like saying somebody can't fold 72o and still raise AA preflop bcause they either raise hands or they don't. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I don't think that villian raises a ton. But the river card is the scariest possible card that could fall. Even marginal players understand what a scare card is. Plus he could have hit a weaker ace and be raising for value. Counting the rake we have to be good here around 1 in 7. It's hard for me to imagine that this isn't the case.

If villian has something like a pair of sixes there isn't much of a reason for him to bluff because it's not so likely that we fold hands that he beats. But if he had something like JT he may bluff trying to get us to fold queen or king high.

[Point Blank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
on the hand:
i'm surprise Aaron would include a 'read' that is actually based on limited stats ...
by stats he isn't exactly passive (unless Aaron saw a couple of spots that would indicate that villain just hit a couple of solid hands in this time frame to bump is AF up ... and also noticed other spots where villain called down with OK hands, as well as weak hands)

[/ QUOTE ]

I presented the read and said it was weakly supported by the stats. I didn't really want to get into the details of the read (it was pretty late when I posted). But the general idea was that he was a player who saw lots of flops, didn't raise very much preflop or postflop.... he was a passive player.

But putting this aside for a moment, I think this situation is generally a bet-fold or check-call situation. I think you would need to find a player who has a very high bluff-raising/misplaced raising frequency before making a bet-call correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

i generally agree with you in this spot (I can't see what will raise that you beat. Nor am a thrilled about checking and calling ... normally these guys will just call with their crappy ace) ... i just can't fold to a relative unknown without at least a weak or lame showdown from him

[Scary_Tiger]

WOW THESE POSTS TILT SCARY TIGER CALL THE RIVER FFS