Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

This guy has a very low pfr and I've played with him a good amount. He likes to open limp big hands and bad hands alike, and get creative on big streets with them, a lot of times waiting for the river.

This may be really simple but I'm just running through the "types" of players I've been up against lately.

So this guy limps UTG and it's folded to me in the BB with 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. I check.

Flop Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Check, check.

Turn 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I bet, he raises, I call.

River 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

All streets up for debate. Bet the flop and quit on the hand? Turn line? River - bet/call, check/call, check/raise/call? No folds.

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

bet/call river, looks pretty standard other than that

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

Looks good to me. Check raise, call river.

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

I would have played it the same way and C/R the river and call if he 3 bets.

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

Having flashbacks to that other thread.

Another one of those "Are we ahead >60% of the time?" I think we are, so I'd checkraise/call a 3-bet, unless we think that if we donk he'll be annoyed and raise us with his AQ or KK or AA or QT (as well as his better flush or boat, which makes me think bet/3betting isn't a given if that happens).

If we donk the river, many players just call with their overpair or 2-pair thinking that in this situation, you have a big blind special and just hit trips, so I dunno.

Given how easily the turn raise could have been a boat or a flush draw, and how odd some of his 2-pair-on-the-turn hands are (Q3? T3? Only QT makes sense) . . . maybe we're behind. Bleah. But this guy could easily be doing this with a pocket, no? His AA or KK or JJ or TT or 99 even?

And we have a backdoor flush!!! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

w/no raise on the turn, river is bet/3bet yah?

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

[ QUOTE ]
This guy has a very low pfr and I've played with him a good amount. He likes to open limp big hands and bad hands alike, and get creative on big streets with them, a lot of times waiting for the river.

This may be really simple but I'm just running through the "types" of players I've been up against lately.

So this guy limps UTG and it's folded to me in the BB with 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. I check.

Flop Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Check, check.

Turn 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I bet, he raises, I call.

River 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

All streets up for debate. Bet the flop and quit on the hand? Turn line? River - bet/call, check/call, check/raise/call? No folds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the flop and turn. I don't think you can even debate the flop check or turn bet.

The river is a simple combinatorial thing, it looks like he could have KQ, QJ, QT, Q9, JT, JJ, KK, AA, all of those add up, and he's probably betting most of them, and they are much more plentiful than the few flushes or boats he could have. So checkraise.

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

[ QUOTE ]
bet/call river, looks pretty standard other than that

[/ QUOTE ]

In what situations is bet/call better than a checkraise?

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

"Are we ahead >60% of the time?"

Gris,

You've mentioned this twice in the past two days with regards to river analysis. I know I know where this is from but I can't think of the source and I'm having problems deriving this number. What is this a reference to and where is the source?

Re: Baby flush vs. slowplayer
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Are we ahead >60% of the time?"

Gris,

You've mentioned this twice in the past two days with regards to river analysis. I know I know where this is from but I can't think of the source and I'm having problems deriving this number. What is this a reference to and where is the source?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's nothing more than the idea that you will put in three bets when you lose and two when you win.

I'm not convinced it's 100% correct because you lose a lot of value when the river gets checked through: betting and getting called is worth a lot, almost a whole big bet I suppose, but each successive bet that goes in has a little less equity for you, especially the third one.

Guy.