[QTip]

Had a lot of time this afternoon to reread the whole section…again and again props to a great book. Here are the few things I had left.

1. When you talk about playing drawing hands, you talk about folding, calling and raising. However, you don’t talk about betting or checking at all. You do mention that in a hand example, but that’s it. I guess we’re to treat checking like calling, and betting like raising, but I would think things get quite a bit more involved than that…esp. when we start to consider being oop and so forth. I thought that was a missing part of the text here. I thought I might prod along some discussion along those lines using this example some

A loose raiser opens for 3.5x, and I reraise with 67s to 13x. Folds to him and he calls giving us a pot of @ 27x.

Now, let’s say the flop comes down J8s2 giving me a FF. I feel like my implied odds are a bit lower here as a 3 flush on the turn will slow some down. So, I feel like I should cbet here and call most raises (or push if he c/res cbets a lot) and go from there. I’d like to see the Jack be a Q or K as I feel that makes my hand a bit more believable, but it is what it is.

Now, let’s say the flop comes down K85r. Now I feel like my hand is more hidden, to the nuts, etc. and my implied odds are a lot better. I wouldn’t be really happy about being raised here, so I’d consider checking a lot more seriously even tho the K helps my cbet some.

I’m sure there’s more to consider here along the lines of opponent types, how I’ve been playing (if they’ve been paying attention at all), and so forth.

Any other thoughts to add on that?

2. The hand example on page 128, we overlimp otb with A7s after a predictable player open limps in MP. Most would scream foul here. Now, you also over limped with KTs on page 135, but listed the reasons as the BB being one that likes to bluff and pay off with mediocre hands. I once read that one reason we raise with suited connectors is to drive out larger potential flushes. Is this a reason why we don’t raise with Axs here? Just wondering.

3. I really liked the concept of defining hands with the AQs example hand in the BB. This seems like it would only work really well with around 100x stacks tho, right? I mean, you get a whole lot smaller or larger, and things get out of whack it would seem.