Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

I like it but I wouldn't push all-in. I think a min-raise is better, or something. And why should this move only work preflop? The whole idea is that the LAG has a wide range, the TAG has a small overpair, and neither of them can call when you show sooooo much strength on a scary board. You called out of the blind, you can easily have 55 or a 3, so they have to fold. After all, who bluffs here????

BTW, strassa had a similar hand not too long ago on a QQx board, same action, I believe. He also pushed and other people also told him that they preferred a smaller raise, IIRC.

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

i kinda like this, but I would like it a lot more if the board wasn't suited. They could put you on a flush draw or call with one. If they're batshit crazy maybe they call you with JJ and under, and then you have outs. There is a lot of money out there to steal, this move is gonna work a lot. Also when they call with KK or wake up with 55 or A3, you look like a [censored] and I can't imagine them wanting to fold a hand to you again.

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, strassa had a similar hand not too long ago on a QQx board, same action, I believe. He also pushed and other people also told him that they preferred a smaller raise, IIRC.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, they told him to just fold, b/c a raise was NOT enough and the donk wouldn't lay down anything.

I think he was trying to bluff in spots that are just too stupid to bluff in (ie the raise was too small, not too big)

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

As I recall, the only question about the hand was that there was a real donk who would allegedly call there with an underpair. However, everyone folded, so who knows. In any case, I think the concept is sound. Relatively.

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

how about this thought:

mp can't call with a non-nut flush draw.

if mp folds, button cant call with a flush draw (which is unlikely anyway given his raise size, i think).

i think a large part of my range here IS the NFD (and a3/43/53/63/yougetthepoint).


bobbo: i fully expect to get looked up by QQ+.

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

yes, everyone always looks everyuone up with QQ+ no matter what the board/action. but the point is that no one has QQ+ here because BN would have re-raised and PFR is LAG.

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

I don't know why everyone assumes if MP calls button comes along with his draw, that would be a fold for me, probably even with the nut flush draw but certainly in this case where he can't have one. Anyways I think this play is reasonable, I really will play the nuts this way too sometimes.

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

looks spewy to me.

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

i kind of agree with TWP. this is a parlay, but not a particularly bad one. button probably doesn't have QQ+ (of which there are only 2 combinations) and might fold JJ-TT. MP has a wide opening range and he should be calling with only QQ+. also, you ahve the Ac so no one can call you with the nut flush draw. so i think you're taking this down pretty often. maybe 75% vs the button and 90% vs MP, which would be about breakeven under big jim's model, maybe slightly +EV. but i still wouldn't do it, considering that you're a huge variance magnet to begin with. but it's a good thought

Re: channeling my inner TWP
 

[ QUOTE ]
yes, everyone always looks everyuone up with QQ+ no matter what the board/action. but the point is that no one has QQ+ here because BN would have re-raised and PFR is LAG.

[/ QUOTE ]


being precise, especially in off the table analyses, is incredibly important, and such, making statements like "he'll never have QQ+ because he's a lag" take you much farther away from being able to analyze it correctly. he will obviously have a big pair some of the time, and the button will sometimes have gotten tricky preflop, and could sometimes have 55 or 33. this is a parlay, and parlays are really hard to look at without applying some numbers, because they're usually far worse than one would think at first glance.