[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post.

At 30 bbs I'm not sure K5s is a good completing from the SB with one limper. You don't really have implied odds for hitting more than top pair and you see how exiting top pair is here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why I'm hating top pair so much. I am mostly going to be ahead. I cannot be playing this hand just for the chance of hitting a flush draw, surely?

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, no one has shown any strength and there's no reason to think you are likely to stack someone just because you hit the hand hard.

[/ QUOTE ]


This seems to be the underlying assumption of the eagles' guy's posts: that a flush is guaranteed to rake in big money whenever you hit with it. But even in this hand, the guy is not stacking us with a made flush, if he has it.

[ QUOTE ]
You say something about getting value from the limper. I don't think limpers are generally inclined to bluff at the pot. Generally, they are passive and have the need to call more than the need to bluff. If he doesn't have you beat, I think you are going to be better off betting into him than trying to let him bet.

That said, I think checking is good because you hand isn't. Leading and then shutting down might be better though, as (especially in a STT) it's just fine to take down the pot when you are ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the problem with betting here, and betting again on a safe turn. I'm losing money to a bigger king but most of my opponents a/ raise bigger kings PF and b/ raise them on the flop.

I can see that I don't have much hand to be playing a big pot but I'm not keen on letting it check through, so I bet a smallish bet on the turn. Am I beat often enough that this is a bad play? (And can other posters please note that I'm discussing a different turn, not an ace.)

[ QUOTE ]
On the river you say something about a bet folding better hands. I don't think that's likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he said it would get value from worse hands and he could fold to better hands.

I think this is close either way. Does Ax call but not bet here?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you mention controlling the pot. You aren't making the pot smaller by betting. If villain has a better hand than you he will most likely raise. It isn't a block. If you bet the river, I think it's for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant that he isn't stuck facing a bigger bet than he wants to call from a hand he might be beating, so losing value. You are saying the same thing from a different angle.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as hand reading goes, I think you did a good job but I would be careful not to think I could really read a random limper in a $27. There are just too many times where you will end up shaking your head thinking "how can he have that?"

The minraise on the river is interesting. It's something that I'd love to figure out, but it seems to be pretty well divided between "please call me" and "I think you are FOS."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I felt the "hand reading" was lacking. There's no discussion here of what hands do that, and whether we can actually beat any of them. I think we can maybe look to villain like someone who had TP on the flop, was scared by the ace, and took it checking through to mean that no one had an ace and is now pretending to have a bigger hand than we do or is simply betting in the hope that TP is still good. (Other players do not always assume you play well! I think hand reading should not be done without taking into account the other players' styles and your own image.) I think this is the "you're FOS" side of your equation. The other side is obviously that he has the made flush or perhaps aces up.