Re: Is this too spewy?
 

wow flop is complete s[pew

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

I'm usually pretty spewy and even I think this is spewy.

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

The call on the flop just doesn't do it for me. I don't see a naked 7 sticking around to catch here, you'd have made on the flop. When he pushes back on that flop, I'm going to chaulk this one up as a failed cbet and be done with it there.

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

fold flop yo

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

i hope this guy can't read hands.

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i hope this guy can't read hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

you check back the turn w/ ur overpairs then i assume?

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i hope this guy can't read hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

you check back the turn w/ ur overpairs then i assume?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, unless I think villain is a total spewtard that'd be check/raising with any pair and then c/c'ing the turn.

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

If his reraise is a bluf, this still isn't the board to float/raise him on.

Re: Is this too spewy?
 

I have a general comment on the "if I had a 7 that's how I'd play" type of bluff.

If you had a 7, you'd bet hoping it would be called by a weaker hand, right? And you know you won't be called by air, and usually, not raised by air.

I believe, if you represent a wide range of hands that beat your opponent (like, if you have a set, a 7, an overpair, two pair, you could play like that) then bluffs are better than the situations where you would value bet one hand, and usually c/c others.

I think if your opponent beats an overpair (which he usually does), you usually can't make it fold. Which makes this bluff a bad bluff, imho.