|
|
#11
06-14-2006, 12:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] very good post duck: I agree that your line is a great one against a super aggressive and/or overplaying villain. But checking behind and calling a river bet or betting if checked to is a reasonable conservative alternative. [/ QUOTE ] By checking the turn the probability of the hero winning the hand on a bluff decreases immensely and if you are ahead there is a 5 to 10 % chance the villain will outdraw you. Against an opponent that aggressive you are obviously bluff calling flops slightly more and picking up pots with garbage on the turn every now and then. Against this type of opponent a check/call check/check induce bluff line should be used much less. [/ QUOTE ] Excellent post Bld, this is a great point. Does the situation change if you have AA? TT? 
|
|
#12
06-14-2006, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
[ QUOTE ]
Does the situation change if you have AA? TT? [/ QUOTE ] The only thing that changes is that the villain will outdraw you less ( now 5% at best) so this doesn't change things much. The hero is not folding kk on the flop or turn in this hand ever. So KK, AA, TT can be played pretty much the same. QQ on the other hand, may be a fold here.
|
|
#13
06-14-2006, 12:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Does the situation change if you have AA? TT? [/ QUOTE ] The only thing that changes is that the villain will outdraw you less ( now 5% at best) so this doesn't change things much. The hero is not folding kk on the flop or turn in this hand ever. So KK, AA, TT can be played pretty much the same. QQ on the other hand, may be a fold here. [/ QUOTE ] Alright, I think I got it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#14
06-14-2006, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said.
With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option.
|
|
#15
06-14-2006, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
[ QUOTE ]
I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said. With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option. [/ QUOTE ] Are you checking with TT to balance out the times you check with QQ/JJ to control pot size?
|
|
#17
06-14-2006, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
I was thinking more along the lines of calling the cold bluf and not a semi bluf, which I thought might be possable for this guy as the board is so "scary" to a big pocket pair if alot of money is going in the pot.
|
|
#18
06-14-2006, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
I agree about qq/jj, the most likley hand I figured him on was a suited connector/AA. THough after he moved in the possablity of AA pretty much disapeared in my oppinion with some peice of the board holding a conector being the most likley.
|
|
#19
06-14-2006, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said. With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option. [/ QUOTE ] Are you checking with TT to balance out the times you check with QQ/JJ to control pot size? [/ QUOTE ]I don't know how much you need to balance that out. I mean, when you check behind on the turn its very often in order to call a river bet. So the only reason to balance it as I see it is so that opponent can't value bet AA/KK here 100% of the time when he has it. I don't think that happens often enough to make it worth checking TT on occaision. Maybe if you planned on folding QQ/JJ to a river bet more often than calling with it.
|
|
#20
06-14-2006, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said. With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option. [/ QUOTE ] Are you checking with TT to balance out the times you check with QQ/JJ to control pot size? [/ QUOTE ]I don't know how much you need to balance that out. I mean, when you check behind on the turn its very often in order to call a river bet. So the only reason to balance it as I see it is so that opponent can't value bet AA/KK here 100% of the time when he has it. I don't think that happens often enough to make it worth checking TT on occaision. Maybe if you planned on folding QQ/JJ to a river bet more often than calling with it. [/ QUOTE ] I'm speaking in metagame purposes. If you only check with either QQ/JJ or TT it will be pretty exploitable IMO. I figured it was something like this: bet with AA/KK or air, check with QQ/JJ or TT.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
