Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

Hand 1: of course you would not check behind AK/AQ or a 7. On the same note, you also wouldn't typically overbet shove the pot for more than a buyin when looking for value. Don't forget to not only consider his range, but also what sort of range we are representing.

Hand 2: you are failing to understand the point of not shoving here. There are basically no hands that call a second barrel, but fold to a shove. Given the board texture, villain likely either has an ace or some pocket pair or nothing. He's stacking off with aces, and he's folding pocket pairs/air to a second barrel.

The point of not shoving is to allow your opponent to make a huge mistake. If he has a hand like AQ that he's willing to stack off with that just calls (instead of shoving) then we have induced a huge mistake. Since we save a quarter of a buyin (or more) when we don't hit, but we still earn the same when we do hit.

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

i dont know really anything about your game but for these bluffs to work especially in hand 1 you have to be able to value bet pretty thin against thinking players.

I rate your bluffs on first level as fine. As in, I dont think you have much therefore ill bet alot to make you fold. I dont think you can rep a strong repuable range

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: of course you would not check behind AK/AQ or a 7. On the same note, you also wouldn't typically overbet shove the pot for more than a buyin when looking for value. Don't forget to not only consider his range, but also what sort of range we are representing.



[/ QUOTE ]

if u dont like hand 1 its probably because you think hes going to call too much with AJ/AT because OP is not representing much. so why cant OP be shoving AK/AQ on river if you think villian will call with AJ/AT..

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: of course you would not check behind AK/AQ or a 7. On the same note, you also wouldn't typically overbet shove the pot for more than a buyin when looking for value. Don't forget to not only consider his range, but also what sort of range we are representing.

[/ QUOTE ]

if u dont like hand 1 its probably because you think hes going to call too much with AJ/AT because OP is not representing much. so why cant OP be shoving AK/AQ on river if you think villian will call with AJ/AT..

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a matter of percentages. When we're bluffing for 2x potsize, he doesn't have to call very often for it to be -EV for us. When we're value betting for 2x potsize, he has to call rather frequently to make it +EV compared to a normal 3/4-1x potsize bet we think he would usually call.

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

i give you 0 out of 10 for both [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

Hand 1 I'm not bluffing twice the pot size.

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

In hand 1 you represent 66 only. Like Bilbo said, no way you should check behind here with AQ, but he is not gonna belive you v-bet it this hard.

I don't like hand 2 that much. He is not folding an A, and he might just have made a set with KK.

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

hand 1 I dont think your turn bet size meshes with your river overbet.

hand 2 um yeah why not

Post deleted by Ryan Beal
 

Re: 200/400 NL - Overbet = Nuts?
 

hand 1 looks good
hand 2 looks bad