Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you checkraise the flop actually? You might have had a good reason, but you didn't tell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, because $1 bets into $12 pots make me insane. There is more, of course: I wanted to charge him for draws and make him make ridiculous bad calls with midpairs and what not. Like, he would call A8o or Q8 in this spot, and likely check it down or bluff if a bad river came. The problem is that a bad turn AND river came. I was by far more prepared to call a bluff with a bad river came (like, for instance, he may try to bluff a mid pair if the cards game Ax 2s instead).

Being OOP in this hand with this flop sucks. In truth, if he bets $4 on the flop or something, for instance, I just smooth call. The $1 into $12 is just insanely retarted, but perhaps I should have adhered to the philosophy that this bet is the equivalent of a check and just called.

Also, if he has a king, he's more likely to fire at the turn. He will check it down if he doesn't, I feel.

Barry

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you checkraise the flop actually? You might have had a good reason, but you didn't tell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, because $1 bets into $12 pots make me insane. There is more, of course: I wanted to charge him for draws and make him make ridiculous bad calls with midpairs and what not. Like, he would call A8o or Q8 in this spot, and likely check it down or bluff if a bad river came. The problem is that a bad turn AND river came. I was by far more prepared to call a bluff with a bad river came (like, for instance, he may try to bluff a mid pair if the cards game Ax 2s instead).

Being OOP in this hand with this flop sucks. In truth, if he bets $4 on the flop or something, for instance, I just smooth call. The $1 into $12 is just insanely retarted, but perhaps I should have adhered to the philosophy that this bet is the equivalent of a check and just called.

Also, if he has a king, he's more likely to fire at the turn. He will check it down if he doesn't, I feel.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. You should treat it like a check. It drives me insane too, but you don't know if he is doing this with a great hand so you might just wait for the turn to make your decision. If you decided to c/c, you should do this and not change your decision after he made that ridicolous bet unless there is some metagame reason for that.

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
The $1 bet on the flop is almost never a king on this board. There are too many draws to charge and (let it be known to those who don't like a c/r), he will call with a midpair.

The river, honestly, I'm glad some people agree that it's a reasonable call. I'll give the results - he showed 87. I thought about block betting this river. More and more I see these overbets of slightly more than the pot on loaded boards me exactly what they are - the made hand. This player simply isn't tricky enough to try to turn J10o into a bluff. And there are more combinations of hands that beat me that don't. I feel that I should have folded.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he turn JT into a bluff? If he bets it he is not bluffing, look at your line

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The $1 bet on the flop is almost never a king on this board. There are too many draws to charge and (let it be known to those who don't like a c/r), he will call with a midpair.

The river, honestly, I'm glad some people agree that it's a reasonable call. I'll give the results - he showed 87. I thought about block betting this river. More and more I see these overbets of slightly more than the pot on loaded boards me exactly what they are - the made hand. This player simply isn't tricky enough to try to turn J10o into a bluff. And there are more combinations of hands that beat me that don't. I feel that I should have folded.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he turn JT into a bluff? If he bets it he is not bluffing, look at your line

[/ QUOTE ]

You made a good point there. I would probably value bet this if I was a villain.

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The $1 bet on the flop is almost never a king on this board. There are too many draws to charge and (let it be known to those who don't like a c/r), he will call with a midpair.

The river, honestly, I'm glad some people agree that it's a reasonable call. I'll give the results - he showed 87. I thought about block betting this river. More and more I see these overbets of slightly more than the pot on loaded boards me exactly what they are - the made hand. This player simply isn't tricky enough to try to turn J10o into a bluff. And there are more combinations of hands that beat me that don't. I feel that I should have folded.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he turn JT into a bluff? If he bets it he is not bluffing, look at your line

[/ QUOTE ]

You made a good point there. I would probably value bet this if I was a villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that he did turn it into a bluff. I said he wouldn't, thereby reducing chances he is bluffing. I did give him a percent chance that he made a value bet with JT here. However, I don't think the cahnce of him making it a value bet was substantial enough to justify a call.

Barry

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you checkraise the flop actually? You might have had a good reason, but you didn't tell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, because $1 bets into $12 pots make me insane. There is more, of course: I wanted to charge him for draws and make him make ridiculous bad calls with midpairs and what not. Like, he would call A8o or Q8 in this spot, and likely check it down or bluff if a bad river came. The problem is that a bad turn AND river came. I was by far more prepared to call a bluff with a bad river came (like, for instance, he may try to bluff a mid pair if the cards game Ax 2s instead).

Being OOP in this hand with this flop sucks. In truth, if he bets $4 on the flop or something, for instance, I just smooth call. The $1 into $12 is just insanely retarted, but perhaps I should have adhered to the philosophy that this bet is the equivalent of a check and just called.

Also, if he has a king, he's more likely to fire at the turn. He will check it down if he doesn't, I feel.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. You should treat it like a check. It drives me insane too, but you don't know if he is doing this with a great hand so you might just wait for the turn to make your decision. If you decided to c/c, you should do this and not change your decision after he made that ridicolous bet unless there is some metagame reason for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

vs. villain you describe I like leading flop and then leading turn, committing yourself.

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
vs. villain you describe I like leading flop and then leading turn, committing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the turn comes a 7s?

Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vs. villain you describe I like leading flop and then leading turn, committing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the turn comes a 7s?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since we've got Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], and he's a megafish, I still like a bet, because then we don't need to worry about what to do on a river card.