[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry if this has been mentioned already, but how is Player 2 shooting an angle by saying call prematurely?

[/ QUOTE ]

He knows Player 1 is going to be between $100 and $400. He says "call" before all the chips are down, meaning he is going to call whatever Player 1 is going to bet. If he thinks Player 1 is weak, then Player 1 now knows there is no chance Player 2 will fold. He was probably going to bet $400, but if there was any chance he was bluffing, Player 2 gets (on long term average) a cheaper showdown, based on the probability that Player 1 might stop short and only put down $100 or $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it ensures that he wins only $100 or $200 when his opponent is bluffing and pays at least $400(possibly more as we see in this story) when his opponent is not bluffing.

Explain to me again how exactly that is beneficial.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really can't figure it out I'm not going to spend much more time on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
this sort of condescension isn't helpful, especially when you've failed to explain the issue adequately in the first place.

in one respect, assani is absolutely correct that player 2's "angle" is utterly useless, and that is if player 1 has "nuts or nothing": if player 1 has a big hand (not necessarily the dead nuts, but simply a strong hand that he instantly realizes must be best when player 2 just calls) then he can extract the maximum given the "angle"; on the other hand, if player 1 is on a pure bluff then he can cut short his bet and lose the minimum. in the nuts-or-nothing scenario, the angle doesn't help player 2 AT ALL.

however, the angle CAN give player 2 an advantage, and that is when player 1 is value-betting somewhat thin: perhaps top-pair/not-great-kicker, middle-pair/top-kicker, or something like 99 on a ten-high board. in this situation, player 2's angle can often get him a cheaper showdown.