Re: 1/2: 88 oop
 

[ QUOTE ]
54/16/1.0/357 (80 hands)

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the 357?

Re: 1/2: 88 oop
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...why is it necessary to bet larger on the flop? you want more value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because betting too small invites trouble. Where he would normally fold when he missed he correctly spots the bet as being weak and then floats us and puts us in tough spots like this one.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think his calling range of $18 = his calling range of $15. this guy isn't folding any pair no matter what we do. also, why are you so intent on him folding? we are certainly ahead of a decent part of his range right? (not saying him folding is bad, but him calling isn't overly terrible i wouldnt think).

Re: 1/2: 88 oop
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...why is it necessary to bet larger on the flop? you want more value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because betting too small invites trouble. Where he would normally fold when he missed he correctly spots the bet as being weak and then floats us and puts us in tough spots like this one.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think his calling range of $18 = his calling range of $15. this guy isn't folding any pair no matter what we do. also, why are you so intent on him folding? we are certainly ahead of a decent part of his range right? (not saying him folding is bad, but him calling isn't overly terrible i wouldnt think).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't expect him to fold a pair.

I just think that if we bet $15 instead of $20 he is more likely to think we are FOS and try to bluff us.

In theory you will say that's good and we should be happy to have him bluffing us but in practice we are OOP with a marginal hand and no idea whether we're snapping off bluffs or getting valuetowned.

Re: 1/2: 88 oop
 

Dave,

Just because he will float often and bet the turn doesn't mean that we will be in a better spot for it. We hate half the deck come turn. By the river we hate most of it. The quicker this hand ends the better. B/f that turn.

Re: 1/2: 88 oop
 

[ QUOTE ]
bet/fold turn

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 1/2: 88 oop
 

Jam,

I can see your point. I don't necessarily agree with it as I think that relative FE of $16 instead of $18 is fairly close. But you bring good merits to your argument.