[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Your logic is contradictory. If this is your read, consider the possible scenarios:

1) Villain can beat an overpair and is valuebetting every street. Given the board texture he could be vbetting 2pair, set, or straight, and any hand combo that would make any of these is in his range.
2) Villain is trying to bluff you off an overpair

Assigning a probability to #2 is up to your read,


[/ QUOTE ]

So far I agree with all you have said, with the exception of "your logic is contradictory". More on that below...

[ QUOTE ]

but if you really think that's his most likely course of action, shouldn't you be folding JT UTG w/ this guy behind you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I do fold JT UTG+1. That is the standard play. Making it 40 with JTs from EP was a non-standard play. I don't think there is any value in critizing this play, unless you believe that hands must always rigidly be played in a certain way. So while I agree that JTs "should be" folded, this was just a case of mixing it up.

I also don't understand why you think having this opponent behind me is the determining factor of what hands I should fold. There are 10 people at the table. I'm not putting all of my focus on one guy who is sitting several seats away.

Furthermore, as you pointed out already, his hand range is very wide here considering his LAG tendencies, and the fact that he thinks I have an overpair. This makes playign JTs against him MORE attractive, not less attractive. For example, take this specific hand. He is not going to think a T or a J is going to help my hand (unless the T counterfeits his two pair). He also does not think I am likely to be on a flush draw. And we are just talking about this specific hand. I would rather have JTs against this player than against a player who is likely to have a set when he gives me heavy action.

I don't think it is possible for you to say raising with JTs was "wrong" here, because it was a change of pace. I had not really played any hands in a while, and almost always fold JTs there.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't like the flop call either way, either. You're just not getting a good enough price OOP when you know you are probably facing another barrel on the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stacks are pretty deep, and I feel that I am getting a good enough price. Also, there is the chance he checks behind on the turn and I get a free card. I wasn't sure I was facing another barrel on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]

You asked for comments on your turn play. I think the turn is the least misplayed street here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not surprisingly, we are not in agreement.

[ QUOTE ]

The confusion he caused you is why LAGs bang the hottest chicks. It doesn't seem like you even tried to assign him a hand range? Your river logic sounds to me like "I know I should fold this, but I have top pair against a LAG who said he likes to bluff and I'm getting 2:1!" For the river decision you also have to add in the possibility that he was bluffing with 1pr or a draw that couldn't beat an overpair on the flop, but now he can.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my whole post? It seriously seems as if you have not. So far, you have reiterated a lot of what I have already said. For example, your points numbered 1 and 2 from the first quote. And now this last part from the above quote - where you say he may have been semi-bluffing but can now beat one pair. I already pointed all of this out in the original post.

You seem a lot more confused than I ever was.

And who said I didn't attempt to assign him a range? I didn't list every possible hand because the range is so wide. He could be semi-bluffing, or he could have a set. He could have air. Why would you want me to start naming specific hands?

I already said that it is obvious I can only beat a bluff.

[ QUOTE ]

River should be a fold but I don't like the logic that got you there.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you that I should have folded the flop. You seem to agree with my turn play, but it is on the turn where I can say I agree with you that I don't like how I got to this spot on the river.

[ QUOTE ]

Besides the fact that calling w/ the bottom of your range vs. a villain whom you have not assigned a range to seems like really really really bad policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am still at a loss why you want me to list a hand range here. His range is vast. That is the whole point.

I was really thinking that there is a pretty good chance that I was good here. The whole question was whether the chance was big enough where I was getting good pot odds.

I know you understand this last point (because I read your post), and that you think the chance is not large enough to justify a call. I can understand why you feel this way, but I don't really agree with any other part of your post (except where you are reiterating what I already said).